Messages

46

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.

47

Lenses / Re: Just got the canon 16-35 ii and having a hard time seeing the value in this uwa

« on: April 19, 2013, 05:37:55 PM »

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

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.

48

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.

49

Software & Accessories / Re: How do you print your photos for those who still do?

« on: April 18, 2013, 10:54:50 PM »

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.

50

Software & Accessories / Re: How do you print your photos for those who still do?

« on: April 18, 2013, 09:44:56 PM »

MPIX.

+1.

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.

51

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

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.

55

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Today Only Photography Magazines deal for $4.99 a year

« on: April 15, 2013, 05:42:55 PM »

.
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.

56

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Today Only Photography Magazines deal for $4.99 a year

« on: April 15, 2013, 05:39:17 PM »

Yes, thanks. Also, please note this statement on the website:

Will you automatically renew my magazines?

"We will never automatically renew your magazine subscription, nor will we ever in any circumstance charge your credit card unless you physically go to our store and type in your credit card information to place another order. Often times publishers will send you a "renewal notice/invoice" when your subscription is coming to an end. These mailings are not coming from us. If you do not wish to renew your subscription, simply ignore these letters in the mail. The only time we will charge a customer's credit card is on the day they made their purchase on our website. Customers will never be recurrently charged for anything we sell."

I always watch magazine offers carefully because a few publishers offer a deep discount and then automatically renew subscriptions at their "lowest subscription price" which can be significantly more than the price they are really offering new subscribers. Glad to see that's not the case here (or at least not what they claim).

57

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 10:30:00 AM »

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

News flash. The majority of photographers don't dare about the crap being discussed here.

58

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 09, 2013, 05:46:37 PM »

But that is exactly the reason that has most people on this forum up in arms, they AREN'T keeping up with advancements in new technology, they are simply rereleasing the same camera over and over again in different configurations. The average consumer may not notice or even care, but we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans do!

Fine. But, 'we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans' make up an infinitesimal fraction of their market. The vast majority of dSLR buyers are 'average consumers'.

Yup!  when the vast majority of the people buying this body will not know what an AF point is, much less how to manipulate them, or know what a cross type point is you don't have to innovate too much...

Hate to say it, but the XXd line and the rebel line would benefit more from instagram filters than an updated sensor...

I must disagree with this condescending attitude. I think most DLSR buyers are buying the cameras because, for a variety of reasons, they are not satisfied with the quality of images they are getting from their iPhones, their fixed lens compacts or their point and shoots.

Rebel buyers are very likely to be price-limited, but that does not make them stupid or incompetent. They may be new to DSLRs, but there is something about the format that they find desirable. Traditionally, this has been the ability to change lenses, but there can be other factors, such as the larger sensor size, sharper lenses, viewfinder, etc., etc.

It would be a major mistake for any company to treat their customers as stupid and Canon hasn't become the industry leader by making mistakes.

Here is something that people just have a hard time accepting: Canon's 18mp sensor is very good. It is more than adequate for 99.9% of shooting conditions. Can it be improved? Of course. Will it be improved? Of course. But, even 3 1/2 years after introduction, it can hold it's own against the latest sensors used by Nikon. It is not that Rebel or XXD users are inept and therefore can be sold inferior goods. It's that the product is only inferior in the minds of a handful of people who get their jollies from looking for insignificant flaws.

59

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 09, 2013, 10:03:03 AM »

Could someone please provide a list of sites or publications that have done side-by-side comparisons of Canon's 18mp sensor to the sensors being used in Nikon's new generation of crop-frame cameras.

There seem to be a lot of drama queens here who pontificate on how much better the new generation of Nkons are, but when I've looked at sample images, I either see no discernible difference or, at higher ISOs, a little bit better performance from Canon.

A handful of individuals on this site keep trashing the performance of the 18mp sensor and others are repeating it as fact. Since this is a site adored by gearheads, how about some objective third-party comparisons?

60

Site Information / Re: Love or Hate Canon Rumors Forum

« on: April 04, 2013, 08:20:51 PM »

I just want to make a quick clarification. I didn't start this thread to suggest any change would or should occur. I just thought it might be entertaining and maybe cathartic for people to share their likes and dislikes. Obviously if you look at the number of posts I have you can see that I am hooked.