January 30, 2015, 11:00:40 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 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 148
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: April 28, 2013, 04:36:00 PM »
..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...

Yeah, I used to see things like that in my head too. But then, I stopped dropping acid.

Is it the flash or is it the ST-E3 that isn't recycling?

Are all the batteries in the packs and in the strobes fresh?

If using rechargeables, any chance some of the batteries have died?

One suggestion, try messaging privatebydesign. He's very experienced with the 600 EX and might know more. My experience so far is just with the 580 EX II and ST-E2. I have had problems with the ST-E2 overheating and then not firing the strobes, but I wouldn't think that would be an issue with a radio control unit.

Lighting / Re: Speedlite Remote Trigger Question
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:24:12 PM »
Another vote for the YN622C. They are easy to use and seem to be very reliable.

A little more unsolicited advice: read some reviews and comments on the Yongnuo strobes before buying. I've seen a number of complaints about some models where, the customer really likes them for a few months and then the flash head blows out. Yongnuo seems to be making a real effort to improve the quality of their stuff, but I'm still hesitant about buying their strobes.

Keep in mind that one of the major practical differences between the 580II and the 430II is the ability to use an auxiliary battery pack. If you get into flash photography much you will soon find that the recycle times of units without a battery pack can become a problem. Nothing more frustrating when shooting a portrait then missing shots because your strobe isn't recycling. Especially if you are trying to shoot kids, pets or almost any subject whose expressions change quickly.

Finally, there is a guide to the YN622C available on the internet that an individual wrote. I don't  have the URL in front of me, but if you do a search you should find it. It's pretty helpful and a lot easier to comprehend than the Chinglish that Yongnuo's documentation tends to be written in.

Finally, have fun, but beware. If you think lenses can eat a hole in your wallet, just wait until you start buying strobes. Nobody needs more than one 70-200 2.8 zoom, but when it comes to strobes, you'll soon find yourself with four or five before you know it.

Canon General / Re: That's my money you are profiting from Canon!!!
« on: April 24, 2013, 08:54:56 PM »

Yes, this is off topic, but I agree with you.  It's been debated before, but I still see a strong correlation between the increasingly hostile and combative environment and the loss of the karma system.  It wasn't a perfect system, but I think it did manage to keep it more civilized around here.

Absolutely agree. As flawed as the Karma system was, it served as a powerful feedback to participants as to how their overall behavior was being  perceived by other forum participants. Karma has now been too often replaced by personal attacks and drive-by comments.

Canon General / Re: the rebate program... what a sham!
« on: April 24, 2013, 04:16:43 PM »
Okay, this has been discussed and explained a number of times before. Even Helen at Adorama has provided input in the past. Basically, Canon has the right to set a Minimum Advertised Price and they require retailers to honor that or they can't participate in the rebates.

The key is the "advertised" price, which isn't always the actual sales price. I don't pretend to fully understand all the rules, but it's what enables retailers to offer special deals through sites like this and through eBay without violating the minimum advertised price rules. It's also what forces retailers to use the "add to cart" option to get to the real price.

Bottom line: the market sets the price. Canon tries to control the prices through Minimum Advertised Price and rebate programs. They are doing this to protect their dealer network, but the dealers can only sell the product at the price the market will bear.

Rebates or not, the same rules always apply: be a smart buyer and comparison shop using the online resources available to you. Know what's a fair price and balance any savings against the reputation of, and your own experience with, the seller.

EOS Bodies / Re: The sound of silence
« on: April 24, 2013, 02:17:46 PM »
Speaking of silence, check out this hilarious review from the camera store on the "new" T5i...

Not bad, but he's no Kai Wong.

Canon General / Re: That's my money you are profiting from Canon!!!
« on: April 24, 2013, 01:50:12 PM »
I think I've discovered a new internet corollary.

Those who begin threads by posting outrageous statements that have no factual basis will eventually claim to have been joking.

Or perhaps it is just true what they say about accountants not having any idea what humor is.

Technical Support / Re: Urgent Help Requested:Photos for my website
« on: April 24, 2013, 10:10:49 AM »
You do know that your competitor is using stock images supplied by the manufacturer or distributor, right?

It's a web storefront. They don't have any carpets in stock, they just take orders and then drop ship them from the manufacturer's or distributor's warehouse.

They are getting their pictures from a supplier that provides these images to similar companies all over the web and all over the world. The original images are shot by a commercial photographer employed by the manufacturer or a marketing firm for the manufacturer. Have you contacted your rug suppliers to see if they have similar pictures available? Most companies provide these images to the retailers.

By the way, it's very obvious in one of those pictures that the carpet wasn't even on that floor. It's a composite image.

Canon General / Re: That's my money you are profiting from Canon!!!
« on: April 24, 2013, 09:55:09 AM »
No. It's not.

Unless you own stock in Canon, you traded them your money for that long list of toys you so proudly display at the bottom of your post. You own that stuff now and can do whatever you want with it. It's yours. It's also now Canon's money and they are free to do what they want with it. So, No. It's not your money.

Secondly, why do people post stories without bothering to read them? Or in this case, even reading the headline.

Canon is adjusting their earnings estimates because the Japanese government's monetary policies have resulted in some inflation at home and some loss in value of the Yen against other currencies in international trade. It's an accounting adjustment.

Finally, I never understand why people get upset when Canon makes money. Do you think they would have more money to invest in research and development if they were losing money? Do you think they would be able to cut their prices if they were losing money?

Canon General / Canon Number 1
« on: April 22, 2013, 11:23:12 PM »
Not sure why this hasn't made it yet to this forum:


Maybe Canon does know what they are doing.

Portrait / Re: Pretty bad...
« on: April 22, 2013, 10:27:00 AM »
Like others, I am scratching my head as to how they ever even saw these pictures. It only reinforces my resolve to never let my subjects see the original shots. I mostly shoot for family and friends, but even in those cases, I'm not letting them see everything I shoot.

To me, that's like going to buy a car, getting a truckload of parts delivered and being told to assemble it myself. It's only half the product. I know some photographers give their clients everything and I know that when they are waiving money in front of you, it's hard not to comply. But, I don't want my bad shots being posted for the whole world to see.

I LOVE using UWA's!

The images here are from the 17-40. I chose these in particular since they are all shot as wide as possible. I also use my UWA ~2x a week working indoors for a company here in Tulsa. I would, however, really consider your style. My wife rarely ever shoots with my 17-40 on her 60D, she prefers the 35L, that is her style and that is what she uses to get results. The 17-40 was the first L lens we bought and I have grown to love it despite it's flaws. Next year I plan on upgrading to the 16-35, but if you are a fan of the UWA look, I would consider the 16-35, 17-40, or Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have used all three and have few complaints with any of them.

Again, if wide is your style, have some fun, but if not, save your money to later optimize your shooting style.


Tabor, I love these shots. Very few portrait photographers have the courage to use an UWA. Even fewer have the talent to know how to use it. You have both.

Software & Accessories / Re: Websites
« on: April 19, 2013, 01:49:21 PM »
I used Dreamweaver to build my website because I didn't need a content management system. However, if you are that familiar with Wordpress, I agree that you might be best off just using a Wordpress template.

Wordpress, Joomla, Drupal, DotNetNuke...they are all about the same and all are content management systems designed mainly for text, but their are lots of third-party templates that are specifically designed for photographers.

For my image shows I use Galleria. http://galleria.io/. About a year ago, I dropped flash because I could see the writing on the wall and switched to HTML. Galleria is javascript-based and relatively easy to figure out (although their technical support really sucks). There are many similar programs out there.

My website is a constant work in progress and I use it as a learning tool. I'm not entirely happy with the design, but I keep experimenting and learning.

The cost to have them print an image is less than what it would cost me in paper and ink, not even considering the cost of the printer itself.

That was true in the days of darkrooms too, so what? I am no puritan but for a group of people who are keen on photography I am amazed, though truthfully not surprised, by how few of you actually print your own images.

All these heated arguments about gear, how sharp lenses are, the colours and rendition, megapixels, dynamic range etc etc, it all pales to insignificance if you don't print your own images.

Why do you insist on taking things out of context and then insulting people?

Printing today is far different today than in the darkroom days – of which I have plenty of experience. Today, most of the work that I used to do in the darkroom is done on the computer in RAW and Photoshop, using other programs when needed. I spend quite a bit of time getting the look I want and I take great pains to get it right.

But, I know the value of paying a professional to handle the mechanical aspects that I have no desire to do myself.

Even in the film days, professionals sent their color work to labs. When I worked as a newspaper photographer I did my own four-color separations for print. But, for exhibition and contest quality work I used a lab. Hell, even Cartier-Bresson had someone else print his pictures. And, news flash, so did Ansel Adams (whom so many people here treat like a God).  I know because he hired my college photography professor to print for him.

It's one thing to send your images off to the corner drug store, it's quite another to use a professional lab that knows how to extract the best prints from your digital negatives.

I you want to disagree with people, that's fine. That's what this forum is for. But don't take statements out of context and distort what people are saying.



I tried Adorama Pix once. Side by side comparison with MPIX and MPIX color rendition was clearly superior. After that experience I haven't tried any other printer, although I'm sure there are other good ones out there.

Besides the super-fast service, what I particularly like about MPIX is that they seem to know exactly what I have in mind when they calibrate the color. Not sure how else to explain it, but if I apply an effect, they print it just the way I see it onscreen. With shots without any special effect, they do an excellent job. Their "true black and white" prints are beautiful.

The cost to have them print an image is less than what it would cost me in paper and ink, not even considering the cost of the printer itself.

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 148