October 20, 2014, 04:03:51 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 - TexPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64
Lenses / Re: Selling my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II
« on: October 18, 2014, 10:56:39 PM »
My 70-200 is my most used and most loved lens.  I bought a 200mm f1.8 a little over a year ago.  Touched the paint up and sold it for $300 more than I paid.  It was interesting, but I never felt like it was a replacement for my 70-200.

Technical Support / Re: Do I Need $ 634 US Dollars Light meter ?
« on: October 18, 2014, 10:17:11 PM »
Call me crazy....
So if you are going to get a light meter.... Get a REALLY good one that will tell you more about your light than the camera will.

Not to worry.  I am not going to get another one.  Actually I have a nice mid 90s Minolta flash meter, and a 1910 era model from my grandfather that seems to work quite well.  But my favorites are embedded in my cameras... :)

Technical Support / Re: Do I Need $ 634 US Dollars Light meter ?
« on: October 18, 2014, 03:00:53 PM »
Call me crazy, but if you are shooting digital, the need for an accurate meter is much less even in studio, because you can shoot, review, adjust, 10 times in 2 minutes. 
And you can probably pick up a used meter on ebay for $20-50 that will get you within a half stop of the high end meter you are looking at.
And last, even a super-duper high end meter is not going to give you a perfect exposure because we all have some personal taste in what we want to see. Are you shooting a scary Halloween scene, where you want it extra dark?  Toothpaste commercial, where it has to be extra brute etc? 

On the other hand is this the last piece of the puzzle in $100K studio where you intend to make a living or enjoy your retirement?  Is this going to provide the inspiration you need to shoot that piece of art that will hang in a gallery and earn a ton a $$?  Go for it.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 17, 2014, 11:52:01 PM »
Cool shots TexPhoto  8)  I especially like the first picture.
+1 Absolutely cool!

Thanks.  I had to set that one up and explain what I was doing to the four photographers pictured.  Everytime I moved to get them in the photo they moved to get out of my way.  And our fire spinner at the time kept making the spin too small, I had to sort of lecture him.  It was his first time and he was very scared of the sparks.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 17, 2014, 08:25:34 AM »
REX59308 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX59272 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX59270 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Abstract / Re: This image may have been photoshopped
« on: October 14, 2014, 12:21:09 PM »
Nobody said it had to be good photoshop.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3
« on: October 12, 2014, 04:33:03 PM »
I'd go with a 6D and 7D II over a 5D3.

I had V1 but sold it.  I keep looking ant VII on eBay and thinking what if...

Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 300-800mm f5.6
« on: October 10, 2014, 01:06:00 AM »
Very cool.  Thanks of rthe review. 

This lens intrigues me because I shoot surfing and the range is about perfect.  At the last surf contest there was a guy with one and I asked to try it, offering to let him try my 400f2.8 IS and both VIII converters, but he acted like we would catch kooties from trying lenses like that... 

I see these on eBay from time to time, but way too much money and of course you can't try it out first...

Sorry i was away, I was using an after market flash extension cord, I was around 120th I think and yes I had a B&W pro filter on.

Hmm, makes me think less of B&W pro filters. Those things should be multicoated to prevent this.

Sorry to be obtuse here, but when light hits surface of the glass on both surfaces, there is reflection, and refraction.  But in the glass there is transmission and absorption.  Some light will always be lost to being absorbed.  It makes heat.  So

Even the best multicoating won't completely stop this phenomenon.  Think of it this way:  if you can *see* a piece of glass, that necessarily means it reflects some incident light, otherwise it would be completely invisible to you.  To be immune to this phenomenon, you'd need a glass that would look invisible and fail to show any reflected light over a wide range of viewing angles.

The fact that the flash is throwing a ton of light directly into the lens at an angle that is not image-forming virtually guarantees that there will be a lot of veiling glare.  That non-image-forming light bounces off the lens sub-barrel and diaphragm, comes back out, hits the filter, and because it's a macro shot, ends up forming a very nice detailed ghost of the inside of the lens.

Sure, without doing something more drastic, such a reflection is pretty much guaranteed. I'd love to see a filter like this with a nanocoating. Where multicoating can cancel out enough reflections to allow up to 97% transmission, that's still 3% reflection. A nanocoating, on the other hand, can simply prevent reflections entirely, resulting in 99.95% or better transmission. I bet a nanocoated UV/protect filter would have handled this situation nicely. ;)

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Singel Image HDR
« on: October 07, 2014, 09:21:31 PM »
Combine all this 3 images to give a single shot HDR RAW.

Well, if there are three shots, it's not really single shot HDR.  It's HDR.  But you might get some nice results.

Lenses / Re: Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM
« on: October 07, 2014, 01:11:04 PM »
But I really wonder if this lens will out resolve a 70-200 f2.8 IS II?  This is one of the sharpest lenses in the world.  I would put my money there, add a 1.4X converter III and shoot my pants off.

It would be better to have a native 300 at 2.8 then a 280 f/4 via tc.  That said, I think the 70-200 2.8 + tc might be better for the OP simply because he has a limited budget and needs to shoot indoor and outdoor sports.  Another alternative could be to get both a used Sigma 70-200 2.8 for ~$650ish (or the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) and a used Canon 300 f4 IS for ~$1000 and get decent coverage indoor and outdoor with native FL's and apertures.  Either way would be cheaper than the 120-300 2.8 and have a bit more versatility, even if its not ideal for dedicated field sports shooting.

If the 300 is as sharp as the 200, or the "280" yes, it would be better to have a 300.  But in this case the 200 is much sharper.  And as the shooter is using a crop camera with a very high pixel density, the lens being sharp is much more important.

In fact after looking at this test, I'd say ditch the teleconverter and shoot at 200.  Crop to 300 or whatever is needed.

Lenses / Re: Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM
« on: October 05, 2014, 01:26:27 PM »
The latest version is the best.  The previous version which looks like the current version, but is not labeled as a "S" for sport is supposed to be the same.  i don't think I'd buy one any older.

But I really wonder if this lens will out resolve a 70-200 f2.8 IS II?  This is one of the sharpest lenses in the world.  I would put my money there, add a 1.4X converter III and shoot my pants off.

Photography Technique / Re: Controlling two cameras
« on: October 04, 2014, 05:04:50 PM »
I alternate between 2 cameras, one with a 400mm f2.8, one with a 70-200.  400 on monopod, 70-200 bare (no strap either) What I do is lay the camera I'm not using on top of my camera bag.  Standing, I can swap them in a couple of seconds.  On knees or butt, even faster.  This also keeps it out of the rain, dirt, grass, bugs... and gets it 12 inches higher when I scoop it up.

But here's the thing, commit to the camera in hand.  You can't catch every photo there is to shoot in a game.  When the game play is in that zone where either lens is good but not perfect, stick with the one in hand and shoot.

Post Processing / Re: Digital "Enlarger"
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:44:47 PM »
An enlarger is a projector for film, right?  So why not take a digital projector (of the sort used in offices to project Powerpoint slides), set it up aimed at the wall, set the photo file to 'inverse' (or is the setting actually called negative?) and you then can adjust the distance until you have the right size image you want.  Focus properly, tape the paper holder to the wall, put in your print paper, and you've rigged up a digital enlarger.

Proceed normally from there.

Decades ago I would turn my enlarger head 90 degrees and tape the paper to the wall so I could get massive amounts of enlargement.  Same deal here.

Would that satisfy the urge to go analog from digital (cheaply)?

Digital projectors actually make a very low resolution image.  Normal ones are 600x800 or 768 x 1024.  Very high end ones star to get into HD video levels, but would still produce a picture that would look pixelated, and lack detail vs a 35mm print.  You could probably make some cool artsy prints.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 64