August 27, 2014, 05:27:24 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 - unfocused

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 134
1
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:06:30 AM »
I am old so I like books. I like to be able to flip through pages with the program on screen, rather than switch back and forth between screens. I like Scott kelby's books because they fit my style of learning. I can jump around and pick and choose lessons (I am unfocused after all)
In fact I'm at a kelby workshop today.
But there are also a ton of resources online on the adobe website and help menu.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:46:07 PM »
Since there has been a raging debate over shadows, noise etc. and I am sooo tired of it, I've decided to start a new post processing thread on the issue. This is not intended to debate the relative merits of one sensor over another. We've had enough of that. In fact, I intend to ask the mods to delete anyone who tries to use it as a soapbox.

But, there are very skilled photographers on this forum who shoot at higher ISOs or with broad ranges of light and manage to produce stunning photographs – even with Canon equipment :)

Sporgon, I'm thinking of you for one.

I really want to improve and learn post processing tips and techniques from others. So please, share your favorite noise reduction workflows http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22372.msg428821#msg428821

This seems a lot more positive outlet than spending page after page and hour after hour re-posting the same talking points over and over and over again.

3
Post Processing / Noise, shadows, etc.
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:35:46 PM »
I'm bored and frustrated by the never ending discussions of shadow noise, banding, etc. etc.

Many of you on this forum  talk about how proper post processing and noise reduction can address these problems that others allege are so horrible with Canon sensors.

Let's NOT get into that debate on this thread!!!!! (I fully intend to report and request that the moderators delete any posts that seek to hijack this thread and use it as a soapbox)

Instead, I'd like to know what techniques people use to reduce noise, banding, etc. etc. What post processing tricks do you employ in Raw, Lightroom or Photoshop to fix noise issues?

4
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:24:12 PM »
So, in case I do free cropping to the image I really want and that image does not fulfill the aspect ratios of the printing lab, then I can't print those in the sizes I want or the lab prints? Or is there a way to "expand" or "shrink" that image to fit the standard print sizes?

Okay, first I said what you are supposed to do. Let me explain what I really do.

I really prefer the native aspect ratio of DSLRs. I try to fill the frame and not crop. Just something I've done for years.

In the 'old' days it was something of a point of pride among photographers to print all the way to the edge of the negative and show the black lines that came through from the clear edges of the film. The idea was to show that what you printed was the exact image you took, without need for cropping.

Anyway, I still usually prefer the dimensions of a uncropped image. Fortunately, these days most of the better photo labs (I use MPix) have a wide range of sizes in a variety of aspect ratios. For example, you can order a 12 x 18 print or a 15 x 24 print that comes very close to the original proportions of the DSLR frame.

I seldom even think about aspect ratio when I work on a picture. I crop it to what I think looks best and can usually find a print size that comes pretty close to that same ratio.

Now, here are a couple of other things to know or consider.

When cropping an image in photoshop, if you take the crop tool and drag it out to the edges of your image so that basically it outlines the edge with no cropping then you can hold down the shift key and grab any corner of the frame and pull it in without changing the ratio. (This "constraining" works with almost all the Photoshop tools by the way)

So, say you know you want a 12 x 18 print (same dimensions as the original frame) but want to crop the image a little, just drag one corner in while holding down the shift key. Don't worry that the crop isn't exactly where you want it. You can do that with each corner until you have it about where you want it. Then you can click inside the frame and drag the image around until it is exactly where you want it. Get it where you want it, hit enter and the image will be cropped.

Another option. Let's say none of the print size choices fit the ratio you really want. For example, you've shot a panoramic image that is like 8 inches tall and 24 inches wide. Create a new layer and fill it with white (use the paint bucket--be sure the white square is the foreground color in the two squares near the bottom of the tool bar. Use the little arrow to toggle back and forth between white and black and background and foreground) .

Move that layer to the bottom, so it is underneath your picture. Now, go to "image" and select Canvas size. Since 8 x 24 isn't a standard print size, pick a size that is. Say 15 x 24.

Now, both layers will be over a background (most likely transparent) that is the full 15 x 24 size. Select your white layer and resize it. (edit menu - transform-scale) to fill the full 15 x 24 size. Now, select the layer that has your picture on it and do any minor adjustments on it that might be needed to get it to fit within the 15 x 24 canvas. (use the same edit menu- transform-scale to resize your picture, holding down the shift key so you don't change the proportions of the image.

Basically, you'll have your picture on a white background with the background matching a standard picture size and your actual image the size you want it. Save a jpeg (which will flatten the image) and then you can order a print in the standard size and it will end up as a print with a white background. You'll have to matte it of course to fit your image, but this is a cheap way to get a custom print size from printers.

As I said in the earlier post, I do this a lot when I want a quick print from Walgreens. I create an 8x10 white fill layer and then paste and resize my image to fit inside the 8 x 10 frame (it's usually about 7 x 10) I'm trying to attach an example. It's not a great picture, but it might help you visualize what I mean.

You can then order prints from anywhere in the standard size (8 x 10) but the final print will be your uncropped or cropped image with white around it. Again, you'll have to matte it to fit a standard frame.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:58:02 PM »
No. A camera doesn't need a sensor. There used to be something called film.

6
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:51:28 PM »
In the lightroom cropping tool there's a lock that constrains your proportions to the original image proportions, or a drop down to choose quick proportions for various sizes. If you uncheck the lock,


That's what I want to do. Know how to lock so it constrains to the original image proportions. And then I can choose quick proportions when I know for sure what size I want. Is there something similar lock in Photoshop CS5?


Read my post. I explained this once.

Let's try it again.

Open your image. Select the crop tool. In the bar at the top of the screen look for the crop icon. It has a little down arrow with it. Click that down arrow. It gives you a bunch of options. Pick the one you want. It will constrain the crop tool to just those dimensions.

Now, in newer versions of Photoshop, there is another box that says Ratio and has two blank boxes where you type in the dimensions you want (I don't recall if this is available in PS5 or not). You can type in any two numbers (Like 8 in one box and 10 in the other) and it will constrain the proportions as you crop.

I know the first one exists in PS5, I can't recall if the second exists in PS5 or not, but they both should do the same thing.

Second question:
How do I make my cropping non destructive?
Thanks
Ray


There is a check box on new versions (again I don't know if it is available on PS5 that says "delete cropped pixels." Uncheck that box and it won't delete the pixels. If that isn't available on PS5, then you will need to save a duplicate file with a new file name (probably as a JPG to save space if you are printing it out) and then crop the duplicate file.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:17:34 PM »
Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I see nothing wrong with jrista complaining about "Canon's crappy low ISO noise."

Anyone is welcome to complain about anything they want. But...

...doing it over and over and over and over again to the same audience becomes tedious.

...attempting to "prove" your point again and again to those who happen to disagree with your opinion becomes annoying.

...insisting that you are right and then attacking anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is obnoxious.

...failing to recognize that what you perceive to be a major concern isn't necessarily even a minor concern of others is rude.

...hijacking every discussion to push your agenda with long diatribes that repeat the same basic points time after time is obsessive.

...demeaning others when they raise concerns about features that you don't happen to care about (as in touch screens) is narrow minded.

...making wild claims that unless your particular obsession is addressed by a major multi-national corporation they will be doomed is delusional.

And, most important of all...thinking that these discussions on an internet forum are anything more than trivial ineffective entertainment is just silliness.


8
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:31:44 PM »
Sorry for the bad english !

English may not be perfect, but your logic is pretty good and your pictures are fantastic.

I see it a little bit differently. If the rumor is true, I think Canon is offering a compromise that sacrifices a little resolution (20 mp vs. 24 mp) and will likely perform slightly better at moderately high ISO (800-3200).

This is actually consistent with what Canon did with the 1DX, 5DIII and 6. After years of "winning" the megapixel war, they decided to concentrate on improved high ISO performance without continually bumping up the megapixel count.

I actually commend them for having the courage to do this. It would have been very easy to offer a 24 mp sensor and just expect people to sacrifice higher ISOs with their APS-C camera and force customers to move to full frame for low light sensitivity. But, it seems very possible now that the 7DII will have decent performance at moderately high ISOs (of course it won't match a full frame).

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:34:58 AM »
...Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it?

...I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough.

Here's the thing...Canon's sensors are good enough.  Good enough to produce stunning images.  Good enough to produce award-winning images.  Good enough be part of the camera system chosen by a majority of photographers worldwide for the past 11 years. 

The fact that they aren't good enough for you and a small number of other people certainly doesn't indicate that Canon's sensor is a 'major issue'.

Well jrista is also now on that list. So it would seem that the list of people that it's not good enough is growing.

At this rate the list should grow to about 100 people within the decade. :)

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:57:30 AM »
DPAF without touch screen is useless to me.

This is actually the one thing that still baffles me. Mind you, I really don't care because I almost never use live view.

But if these specifications are true, it does seem like they have made a number of improvements for video users and I can't imagine not offering a touch screen for video. But then, I'm not a video person, so maybe it makes sense to others.

11
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:09:48 AM »
Click on the crop tool. At the top of the screen, there is a bar with a number of selections for the crop tool. You'll see another image of the crop tool with a little down arrow beside it. Click the arrow. You'll see a whole bunch of aspect ratios (dimensions). Pick the one you want and it will constrain the crop to match those dimensions.

12
Are you sure you want a monopod with feet? To me they seem like the worst of two worlds - too bulky for a monopod and too unstable for a tripod. Monopods don't need the super stability of a tripod. I have one of the inexpensive Manfrottos and it works fine.

I would also recommend a tilt-pan head like the Manfrotto 56 3D junior head.

The way I use my monopod is to stabilize the camera and then just tilt the whole thing it up or down to track the subject. Keep IS on and together they work fine. I don't care that the head is rigid since I don't use it for anything but a support for the camera. I like the tilt shift heads because I can shoot vertically as we'll.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:22:49 PM »
Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...

Perhaps you should answer how you can take pictures with Canon stock or sale numbers?

And many a company weather the lazy storm for a while, before sales finally started taking a hit.

That wasn't my quote. It was Neuro.

Amazing to me how people who claim to have such superior knowledge and interest in technical matters can not master this site's basic HTML.

Amazing how you forgot that you quoted Neuro there to say that he got it all right, I was responding to the fact that you said you agreed with that and that he said it all.

No. You attributed Neuro's quote to me and then apparently couldn't figure out to attribute my real quotes to me.

Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.

So, while you might be great at "QED the physics theory," I was simply pointing out that you didn't seem able to master the site's very simple HTML.

So, from someone who doesn't know "QED the physics theory," I'm with Neuro on this one.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:50:23 PM »
Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...

Perhaps you should answer how you can take pictures with Canon stock or sale numbers?

And many a company weather the lazy storm for a while, before sales finally started taking a hit.

That wasn't my quote. It was Neuro.

Amazing to me how people who claim to have such superior knowledge and interest in technical matters can not master this site's basic HTML.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:30:01 PM »
The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box. 



That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.

Totally agree. I don't want to be limited by technology.

Clearly you don't get it. A camera is nothing more than a mechanical box. It will always be limited. To be a photographer is to understand those limitations, which can never be separated from the medium. And, to use those limitations to produce works of distinct, personal vision.

In its highest form, those images will speak to people and convey a message than transcends the image itself.

Sure, technology marches on and it's nice to be able to take advantage of those advancements to make images that are technically improved. But, never equate technical perfection with quality.

Time marches on, but Robert Frank's grainy, unsharp, less than perfect images don't prevent him from remaining the most influential photographer of the second half of the 20th century. A photographer who accomplishment remains unmatched today.

Any photographer who can't produce a great image because of the limitations of his or her equipment was never much of a photographer in the first place.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 134