Messages

31

Software & Accessories / Re: Suggestions on how to organize all my years of photo's in LR 4.3?

« on: February 18, 2013, 01:52:02 AM »

Currently they are in windows

Year
      Month
              Date taken folders

I tried the iphoto thing years ago and it ruined years of phot's so very hesitant to do something that will not leave them in their original repository on my server. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

What you have is fine.  Now since you are in LR start tagging your photos.  It is unlimited what you can do using the database driven architecture of a program like LR.  Start with people’s names; organize these in terms of Friends, Family, etc.  My folders are Year -> Quarter -> YYYYMMDD_Description.  The whole point of LR is that you don’t need a folder structure any more complex than what you have.

You have to be religious about tagging though.

32

Software & Accessories / Re: BlackRapid & Kirk clamp hook-up

« on: February 16, 2013, 04:57:31 PM »

I use a black rapid strap and an RRS screw clamp.  The screw never comes loose and as one poster said, set it so that teh screw knob is under the lens which will further reduce the probability.  That said, I am still paranoid.  When I am not using my BR strap and clamp, I use an Op/Tech "Super Classic Strap" as shown here:

http://www.amazon.com/OP-TECH-USA-Super-Classic/dp/B000JJN9PK/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1361051404&sr=8-15&keywords=optech

When using the Black Rapid Strap, remove the padded part of the Op/Tech strap (it just unclips) and I loop what remains through the BR strap as shown in this blog post:

http://blog.martinbaileyphotography.com/2011/05/29/podcast-288-camera-straps-and-safety-measures/

This hasn't saved my bacon yet but at some point it probably will.

BTW:  I don't agree with Martin's use fo the quick release clamp (and niether did teh guys at RRS).  I use a screw clamp in place of that.  RRS has now designed a clamp specificaly for the application which is (for those who might be interested):

http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=B2-FAB-F&type=0&eq=&desc=B2-FAB-F-38mm-clamp-with-flat-back&key=it

33

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 14, 2013, 05:02:11 PM »

Nope. As mentioned previously I had the same kinds of error.  So in essence the method is flawed.  Relies on an accurate AF confirm which we all have known for some time is pretty darned useless.

It's a very nice concept and one that someday may be refined enough to actually be built into firmware.  Right now it's even worse than FoCal.

I tried this today on the 5d3 with my 50L 1.2 and 16-35II's long end and it gave me very inconsistent results. I did this on a controlled light setup, marked my positions at max distance for both lenses, wide open aperture and aligned the target (from lens-align) parallel to the sensor. I tried this technique 3 times on the same positions with both lenses. I shut down the camera and restarted the test after each try. These are the results:
50mm 1.2
first try -5 to +12
second -9 to +9
third -8 to +16

16-35II on 35mm
first try -9 to 10
second -5 to +14
third -6 to +12

Did I do something wrong?

I'm actually surprised at how few people have reported DotTune isn't working for them. Not because I don't have confidence in my method, but because I expected the teething period to last longer as people sorted out the nuances of the viewfinder focus confirmation system, not to mention the percentage of users who report MFA issues using even existing methods. In my original dpreview Nikon thread the success rate was close to 100%, whereas on the Canon FM thread there were quite a few more people with issues. But nearly everyone who had problems later reported back and said the method worked for them once they followed the additional guidance I posted in my follow-up posts on that FM thread.

As for the accuracy and precision of the viewfinder confirmation system, I've actually found it to be extremely accurate on both the Nikon and Canon bodies I tried. But it takes patience, diligence, and some practice work through the nuances of its feedback.

It seems simple enough for a peerson to run your proposed methodology and compare it to what he done using some previous method and see if the results are similar.  I did it quickly on several lenses last weekend and got roughly the results I expected (i.e. it appeared to work -- not surprising since it seems technicaly sound).  I find that all of my glass (on the 5DIII anyway) is within +/- a couple tics of 0 and that didn’t change from what I did with my previous methodology.  The 50 1.4 wanted -7 which was a little more than previous for some reason (maybe I screwed the pooch somewhere on that one).

34

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 12, 2013, 08:16:27 PM »

ok so guys are saying you want the thread to go this way:

OP:  help me use my 5D3 better in HDR situations
forum: you dont' understand physics; you're camera is junk

how does that help?  why do we have to answer reasonable request on how to use a Canon camera with a sensor bomb that Nikon does DR better?  help the OP for pete's sake and move the physics discussions to another thread please.  Those discussions (about sensor physics) are valuable and I want to see them - just not in response to a question about how to use a camera that is branded according to the charter of this site.

The question was answered several times -- I answered it in te 8th reply.  He probably got his answer, took his popcorn and moved on. 

35

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 12, 2013, 01:39:32 PM »

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

Sorry, my mistake, typing this stuff out and then reading a reply hours or days later isn't the most fluid or nuanced way of getting your impressions across!

 

This forum structure doesn't help a lot either.

No but I prefer it to the DPReview style with sub-threads going off everywhere. Can you choose show all in thread anywhere like you can on Photo.Net? However, whilst the mods have done a great job with the moderation of this thread several key posts have been lost so the context of the whole thing is a bit weird too.

I wondeered what was going on.  It had been at 11 pages then droped to 7 with some stuff gone, now creaping back up.  Oh well, moderation is good even if it is a bit like hearding cats sometimes.

36

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 12, 2013, 01:01:43 PM »

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

Sorry, my mistake, typing this stuff out and then reading a reply hours or days later isn't the most fluid or nuanced way of getting your impressions across!

 

This forum structure doesn't help a lot either.

37

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 12, 2013, 12:57:00 PM »

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are

no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

there seems to be a certain degree of nonsense that comes out in these types of conversations. to suggest the 5D mrk2 is a garbage camera for any reason only serves to discredit those making that claim. stop the nonsense or post a picture proving that the camera is the sole reason holding you back from taking great pictures.

the DR conversation is a bit of a non starter for me for two reasons.

firstly there are a number of work arounds to increasing the dynamic range of a scene that have been around for a long time. i can get all the range i need in my 5Dc. i do the same on the Mrk 2. would extra DR in camera be nice? yes....but it doesn't come even close to negating the cameras usefulness.

secondly, most great photographers seek out great light. the gear they use to record the image is almost superfluous if great light is not present! i have to shoot in all kinds of light due to circumstances and i accept that not all shots i take are going to be the pinnacle of my ability. not because my gear is the shortcoming...but because i am not afforded the luxury of finding the quality of light i know will create a phenomenal photograph.

14 stops of DR will not turn crappy light into great light. it will only marginally improve a photograph that is taken in crappy light. why is that so exciting? you are still left with crappy light.....

i dont get it.

Yea... this is pretty much the conclusion I have come to over several years of these sorts of threads as well.  I think that "non-starter" is a pretty apt summary of current state of the whole discussion.  If the equipment was as bad as folks like aglet would want us to believe, no one would be using it.  However, the reality seems to be the exact opposite in that despite these well-known and well documented limitations, somehow, someway competent photographers continue to achieve excellent results.   The limitations don’t seem to be too insurmountable for those who know what they are doing and there seem to be a heck of a lot of people who do because there is a veritable plethora of excellent shots available as examples of this.

38

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 12, 2013, 02:04:01 AM »

It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants.

you missed the part where a -3EV exposure shows pattern noise with +1 EV
no way that can be described as a good performing camera, no matter what the subject.
SNR on that thing is far worse than DxO published measurements convey because they don't accurately evaluate detectable noise pattern

if you expect me to show you SNR problems at higher EV levels you don't understand how this works.

I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.

you just SAW one example, not gonna waste my time providing others.

If people can't infere or extrapolate real world performance from an example or controlled tests then the camera's IQ isn't the only problem.

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.

For a camera with such limited usefulness, it somehow garnered a huge user base – essentially eclipsing its competition.  I think you are going to see the same from its successor as well which seems to be doing quite despite its rather steep price.  While YOU may think the camera is a POS it would appear that the majority of buyers and users have not found themselves in agreement with your assessment.

39

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 12, 2013, 01:04:50 AM »

agierke,

You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are.

From the images I have seen to back up the claims that Canon sensors are "unusable" I would have to say it is the complainers who are severely misguided.

I know of working sports pros who are still more than happy with their 1D MkIII's too. Sure MkIV's and 1Dx's are "better", but at what point is the gear good enough often enough to stop coming out with nonsense like we have had here.

I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.

Another one is Pete Souza who for some reason chose to use a 5DII (and now a 5DIII) when I suspect that he can probably use anything he wants as well.  The fact is that there is more than ample proof that people who know how to use the gear can get rather stunning results from it.  Sadly, this is a bit more than we can say for some of the more vocal detractors.

FWIW:  Fashion shooters probably never worry about the DR of their gear, I didn't watch the videos (I will when I get a chance) but Anne Libowitz can also afford all the lights, reflectors, assistants, etc. that she needs to make sure the shot is perfect.  Souza is a little different, having less control over his lighting.  All this said though, the DR is only an issue if you make it one which is what most of these guys are out to do.  I have yet to see anything in this thread that I could not be done just about any decent DSLR regardless of the brand if used properly.   

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 10, 2013, 02:02:23 PM »

You know, if the 5DIII had inadequate dynamic range, then there's no way I would have been able to have made the attached image -- an image which includes detail both in the shadows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and in the Sun itself. Anybody care to guess how many stops that includes? Whatever the number is, if you think you need more dynamic range than I've captured here, you're nuts.

Sure, it's multiple exposures blended together. So what?

Point is, the instances where the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range to capture a scene in one exposure but where a D800 does are so far and few between that it's insane to base your camera choice just on that one metric alone. Especially considering that, in the overwhelming majority of said instances, the proper solution isn't a camera with more dynamic range but rather to fix or embrace the light.

Think about it.

If it's landscape, either you should be waiting for the Golden Hour or you should be blending exposures (either digitally or with a graduated neutral density filter) or you should be embracing the harshness and working for something extremely contrasty with lots of black, lots of white, and not much gray. Even if you could capture it all in a single exposure, you're still going to need to make intelligent decisions as to which parts of that dynamic range you're going to keep and which you're going to throw away, since there's no output medium that can come close to reproducing anywhere near as much dynamic range as cameras already capture.

If it's portraiture or still life (including product photography), if you can't control the light, you should be fired.

If it's some sort of photojournalism, you either should be accurately representing the scene (which is going to mean some combination of crushed shadows or blown highlights) or you should again be fixing the light.

Now, will there be situations where you can use a couple extra stops of less noise in the shadows and some digital fill to simulate the flash / reflector you didn't have with you on the set? Yes. But will the results be as good as if you had actually properly used a flash and / or reflector? Hell no.

And will there be people doing some sort of photojournalism who want to make the results look more like portraiture? Sure...but I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not interested in that kind of distortion.

Cheers,

b&

Pretty much my point exactly.  Know the limitations of your stuff and how to work around them if need be.    If some limitation turns out to be really annoying, replace that piece with something that works better for you.  Pretty simple really.

41

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 10, 2013, 02:13:49 AM »

David we have had our discussion a long time, but not here.
The real thing is that people do not know the benefits of large DR and the work  in raw converters and photoshop.
It is like the 10000 hours  I have been spending in the lab and make copies, and now I do not know the words for after light/ give more lights in some areas, shadow the light  and make a cast, mask  etc with different tools and with my hands. Or handle  a 400iso film and  expose it after 200iso and cut the developments in minutes to get a contrasty motive softer  developed  and then to be able to reproduce this contrasty motive  with the right hardness of photo paper  (I think you know what I mean)

The same you can do by scanning a film and some  after work or  with a digital camera and raw, the basic is that we have  no clipping in the high lights and in  a contrasty motive, this is way a large DR means a lot

Yea I have seen his video before – but, at the end of the day, who cares if you can do stuff like this if you don’t produce art with it.  There is a huge difference between demonstrating what the technology can do and actually demonstrating that you can do something artistically compelling with that technology.  It is that second part that we never seem to see (or very seldom see).  The proponents of this marvelous sensor technology would be better served by putting up compelling examples of stuff that can be done with it (that cannot be done with any other of the options out there) rather than the contrived stuff they tend to post.  Unfortunately, they cannot because there really aren’t any (or at least far, far fewer than the low-ISO, wide DR fan club would want us to believe).  If you remove the artificial limitations that these guys usually like to lay down (don’t want to carry my tripod, have to get it in a single shot, etc.) there aren’t too many shots that you cannot nail with any of the latest top notch gear by working around whatever limitations it has (and a competent photographer will do this).  I don’t see the gear as a serious limitation.   

To me, the primary benefit of the technology is that if you have a bad exposure for whatever reason, you can lift the shadows a bit and fix it.  You clearly have more leeway in this regard with the later Nikon gear than the Canon stuff and that is mainly due to the pattern noise, not the random noise based DR difference (that DxO measures).  This is a huge benefit for the Nikon gear; however, in fairness to Canon, I have never really had a problem with their equipment for any real world work I have done.

you can not be serious-are  you. why then  discuss large DR or a lens resolution from different lenses?IF its not matter?
what are you saying?

I am completely serious and I think that the post was reasonably clear.  I think that a lot of people are making a much bigger deal out of this than it deserves, making mountains out of mole-hills IMO.  I think I was pretty clear in my last bit where I, myself, thought the real benefit lies.  And, yes, I am sure that the same is true for a lot of the discussions about lens resolution but I tend not to participate in those (not sure why -- they are probably interesting as well).

One of the things I notice about photography forums (and other things like High End audio, Apple vs. PC, iPhone vs. Galaxy3… the list goes on) is people tend to get wound up in the minutia to the point that it becomes almost religion.  I don’t expect those that are religious regarding the DR differences to agree with me but perhaps some others will find value in the commentary.

I am starting to agree with the popcorn guys though, but I think in my case, I'll go for a martini :-).
 

42

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 09, 2013, 10:55:36 AM »

Many scenes have less than 11 stops of actual DR in the scene, in which case there's no 'deficiency'.  Other scenes have more than 14 stops of DR, in which case all current dSLRs are 'deficient' and multiple bracketed exposures and HDR are the only way to capture the full scene DR, assuming you need to do so.

While not false, I think this description is misleading.

A given scene usually have dark parts and bright parts. When we do image processing we might want to "dodge & burn", apply curves and levels or whatever to make the scene look "pleasing", to direct the viewers attention to something, to overcome the limitations of printers etc.

If your camera has 2 stops more of DR, then it is an indication that (depending on how you choose to expose your scene), you will have 2 stops more of highlight information, 2 stops more of shadow information, or some combination of those two. If a scene has "15 stops of DR" you will be able to make more of it with a 14-stop camera than an 11-stop camera.

I think that all of the above is relevant and fair information about camera vs scene DR. Now there are many views on the importance of DR > 10 stops. For some reason it is deemed highly important to some Nikon users, while some Canon users find it utterly unimportant. I expect that situation to flip if ever Canon release a 15-stop DR DSLR.

-h

What really matters is what sort of photography you can do with it and so far we haven't been treated to any earth shattering breakthroughs in image making as a result of these two stops of additional DR.  If it was as significant as some would have us believe, then we would easily be able to walk into any gallery and pick out the Nikon images from the Canon ones – but we cannot.  We continue to be treated to the same me tired, contrived examples that are completely devoid of any artistic value whatsoever and I doubt that THIS will change even if Canon were to come out with a 15 stop camera.

43

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range

« on: February 08, 2013, 04:07:51 PM »

Folks,
Greetings,
As we all know the dynamic range of 5D MK III is not better than its counterpart Nikon D800. I was wondering if this deficiency could be addressed by using single shot HDR for batch processing. Has anyone tried HDR batch process to improve dynamic range, what would be good software for this purpose or any other comments. Thanks in advance.
Raj

If the information ain't there in the original single shot, then it won't be there in the post processed result regardless of how you try to post process it.  Put another way, there is no way you can squeeze 14 stops of DR out of a capture that only had 12 stops of information in the first place.   

44

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7000 replacement in April...

« on: February 06, 2013, 11:55:07 AM »

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way  to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

You should run the 5D II RAW image through Topaz DeNoise 5, and use the debanding feature. You might be surprised how much DR is recovered. The blacks may not be as rich, as Canon uses a bias offset which eats a chunk of shadow DR, but the noise would very likely disappear. DeNoise has shadow tone recovery features as well, which could restore or deepen some of those shadow tones. Once you eliminate the banding noise, Canon sensors fare a hell of a lot better against there competitors.

why would I do that? no software who eliminate banding etc are doing that with out that Im  loosing resolution/details
it is much better if Canon improves theirs read out noise

True, but until they do there is an option for those using the later cameras that tend to produce a more unidirectional form of banding (and less of it at that).  And… since this tends to be more evident in the shadow areas, any smearing is probably less obvious.  The point is, there are several viable work-arounds for any low ISO deficiencies that the Canon sensors might have.  At this point, I consider this to be a feature that Nikon has and Canon does not.  Like any other "feature" one has to determine how important it is to what they want/need to do.  For those who prefer Canon (for whatever reason that might be), there are options for the fairly limited number of real world cases where the read noise poses a significant problem.  To me, this is a rational way to look at it which bypasses most of the hype.

Yes, I am the same guy from DPR.  I have to sau that I like their UI a lot better it is harder to keep track of things here.

45

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7000 replacement in April...

« on: February 05, 2013, 10:03:36 AM »

Interesting points about the banding noise, my older XXD Canon sure has tons of it above ISO 2500.  I need to try some software to fix some of my work, that's for sure.  Photoshop works well until the banding starts.

Notice in your link to Nikon's own data, that the DR falls to about 10 stops by ISO 800.  I mean, who really cares if you've got 13, or 14 stops below that?  What counts is what's above ISO 800. 

If you're shooting below ISO 800, you're still going to use highlight tone priority if you have elements in the image which are extremely bright and you don't want them to look too pale or blown out...or at least I do.  That is COMPRESSING the dynamic range of what gets stored on the file.  You certainly don't need that many stops down where the noise is lowest anyway...because a jpg is only 8 bits.  Does this sound wrong to you?  If so, what would you do with a "future" sensor that was 16 or 18 stops at ISO 100?  Shoot raw, then print from a 48 bit upsampled TIFF file (probably 20 GB in size) and display the resulting "print" on a transparent backlit, multi-stage screen using some exotic led's or xenon lamps?  Get real.  Our eyes see huge dynamic range, but print media can't display it.  They can only display a dynamically compressed approximation, as in HDR technique, etc.  It's called "painterly" for a reason.  The reason is dynamic range compression.

You might give the NR plug-ins from Topaz or Nik a try but I don't think they were effective on the two dimensional pattern noise that was present in the older cameras.  On the newer stuff like the 5DIII and 6D where the noise pattern is much less and only vertical, they appear to be quite effective (at the expense of some slight detail reduction).

To me the only real benefit of the additional DR is that you can pull the shadows a bit more on those cameras w/o worrying about pattern noise -- there are a few cases where this would be beneficial.  However, to get any benefit from this at all, you will need to run your camera with the ISO set at ISO 400 or less (preferably ISO=100).  I have always found it interesting that in the majority of the examples provided, the shot could be made with either camera if it were used correctly.  By that I mean that in almost every case, the shooting scenario does not preclude the use of a multi shot approach -- take a look at the examples provided in this thread.