February 27, 2015, 04:22:08 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 150
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.

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 18, 2013, 09:05:49 PM »
If only Canon would announce they had a 21mp sensor with the same or better low light high ISO low noise capabilities as that other mob, That would be worth hearing.

I'd sure like to know what "other mob" you are referring to. I think I've looked at virtually every reputable test site I could find and have yet to see any evidence that the new generation sensors being used by Nikon offer any noticeable improvement in high ISO low noise performance.

I too am hoping that Canon's next generation of APS-C sensors has better high ISO performance, but it's not like the current 18mp sensor is significantly worse than the current Nikon offerings.

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H
« on: April 17, 2013, 11:11:26 AM »
This site is hosted by a US company, so it is a de facto a US site and as such, are required by US law to disclose any financial consideration they receive for reviewing or recommending gear or stores.

Just sayin'...

It's an advertisement. That's why it says "Ad Post." Your point doesn't apply.

Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring
« on: April 16, 2013, 01:43:14 PM »
Just a thought: next fall I am hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (and, I hope, back up again). I've been seriously thinking about the new SL1. It weighs half as much as my 7D, but with no sacrifice in image quality. I'd still have to lug around the 15-85mm lens, but I'd be shaving almost a full lb. off the weight with the SL1.

I realize that it will only be out a few weeks by the time your trip rolls around, so you'll pay an early adopter's premium, but it is a way to shave weight without losing quality.

Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring
« on: April 15, 2013, 08:45:06 PM »
The focal length on the 15-85 sounds incredible, but I'm a little hesitant about not being sharp enough since its often bundled as an entry level lens.

I think you are mistaken. The 15-85 is not routinely bundled as an entry level lens. Both the 15-85 and 17-55 2.8 are excellent lenses with "L" quality sharpness. But, the 15-85 is not a light lens. Still, if you are only taking one lens, it is the best all-around lens for a 7D, as it covers a 24-135 35mm equivalent range. If it is the only lens you are taking, it is the best choice, although I usually pair it with the 70-300 L zoom. Together, I can confidently go almost anywhere and know I will be able to cover almost any situation I run into.

Send them $5 and they'll sell your mailing address to every photography-oriented marketing entity in this world and on two adjacent planets!!

Well, that's true with any magazine subscription, any eNewsletter or any website (including Canon Rumors – why do you think you get those banner ads for Canons every time you go to another website?) I don't mind. It's how they keep the Internet "free" and how they can afford to send  you magazines for less than the price of postage.

Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 150