September 17, 2014, 06:04:07 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 4 ... 62
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Is my Mountain shot HDR or not?
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:23:52 PM »
Nice image! I don't think it's HDR based on your description. 

Some time, take an image like this and process it as an HDR, then process normally and layer the two images.  Adjust the opacity of the top image to get a blend of the 2.  10% HDR, 30… 70..  Whatever looks good.

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:19:42 PM »
One thing I do to tone down my HDR is to process the image 100% all out HDR.  Then take the the middle exposure image and process it normally (conservatively).  Then layer the 2 images in Photoshop, and se the top layer opacity to 50%.  Now use the opacity of the top image as a slider for how much HDR you want.  You could also use the erase tool to effect parts of the image, or add an adjustment layer.

Note your HDR image may be different in total pixel dimensions, as different RAW processors treat the edges differently.  If that is the car, select both layers, auto align and trim the edges.

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: September 02, 2014, 11:14:24 PM »
Here is another done about the same time of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..

Love it. 
Here is one I shot on the weekend.  Stolen burned out Toyota Yaris I found in the woods.
REX50132 2_3 2_4 2h by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

High speed sync?   My 5d mkiii also syncs at 1/200..., but that isn't really germane.
Sure I'd like a 400mm f2.8L is mkii, but I don't have a spare $12,000... though I can check the couch cushions... let me check right now... nope only $8,000, mostly in pennies.  I have mulled over a 1dx, but I'm quite happy with the mkiii at the moment.  Actually, when I shoot sports I time and anticipate... I haven't sprayed and prayed in quite a while.

Good news 400mm f2.8L is mk II down to a rock bottom $10,500!

Actually I was going to mention the 300mm f4 is a hell of a lens for the money.  300 2.8 is nice, but f4 will get the job done. 

Canon General / Re: Some wait for 7d2 other do great without it.
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:21:07 PM »
I liked using the panorama mode as a strip camera.  That was cool.

The under water housing was cool, but I can see a lot of wet phones resulting, at least with a glass that small.

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:50:51 AM »
The WWE does not shoot jpeg.

Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:21:08 AM »
Very Cool. I have the 400mm f2.8 IS and love it.  But I have been bidding like crazy on the few VII lenses that have popped up on eBay.  I even won an auction at $8900, but the seller refused to ship claiming the auction had a reserve of $10500,  but it did not. 

Anyway good luck with it.  Post a lot of photos for us.

Lenses / Re: Has anyone tried new 10-18 on a full frame?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:14:24 AM »
check this link.

Very cool. Makes me consider buying it.  One thing I'd like to point out to anyone who fits a crop lens to a FF or 1.3 crop camera, don't be afraid to shoot with a little vignetting. It can provide a cool look that can set a photo apart from the rest.

I spotted a guy shooting a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 when i was a t a bike race.  I swapped my 8-15 for his lens for a few minutes and shot way.  But I was shooting a 1D mark 4, and at 11mm i god some vignetting.  So what?  it was cool.

REX18741 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: Best PRIME lenses to take to NYC?
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:21:26 AM »
The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART is a fine lens, but if that is the widest lens you take, you would be missing out on some awesome shots.  On your list there I would add the 16-35, or the 8-15.  If you must go prime, rent or buy a 14mm. 

I bought a used Manfrotto carbon fiber monopod on ebay for $75.  Love it.  Hefty, but not heavy.  No head.  I shoot my 400mm f2.8 from it and don't need a head.

One time I bought a $12 Vivitar monotpod at walmart.  Figured i'd use it on my smaller gear.  Head cracked and the screw got stuck in my camera.  Took hours to remove.

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:46:13 PM »
Well, there are better t-shirts for RAW shooters.

You will get better results with RAW, but the difference is very small especially if your manipulations of the photo are going to be minimal and your lighting was good, and lighting color was good etc. 10+ years ago cameras made horrible jpegs and there was more of a difference.

I shoot RAW+Jpeg 100% of the time, and for casual shooting, 90% of the time I use the jpeg.  For Serious work I use the RAW. 

Lenses / Re: Has anyone tried new 10-18 on a full frame?
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:56:11 AM »
I modified my 10-18 recently and test it on my old eos50e. I was amazed when I saw the lens can cover the frame at 13mm with just a little distortion :D. No test shots because there's no film lab in my city. I used a piece of matte glass attached on the back to do the test.

Can you explain this a little more?  You attached matte glass to the back of what?  or do you mean the film plain of the camera?

Lenses / Re: Has anyone tried new 10-18 on a full frame?
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:00:25 AM »
You can't put this lens on full frame, it won't fit.  Not without physical modification.  It has an extended rubber ring that would contact the mirror of a FF camera. 

I have a Tokina 11-18mm that works great on FF, and 1.3X crop.  Third party crop lenses mount fie on FF cameras.

Here is my Tokina at 11mm of a 5DIII (no hood):
REX50031 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

By 14mm you get 100% cover on FF.  On 1.3 crop you get 100% at 11mm, but must remove the hood.

I always shoot in Servo because I shoot sports, and kids.  Yes i will shoot the ocasional landscape, but servo works fine for this most of the time.

I am a semi-pro sports photographer sort of.  It's my hobby, and I sometimes get paid.

During the game I will never use a flash.  From the stands, yes you will see small flashes from amateur cameras with pop-ups. But not zooming, pro external flash units.  Up in the stands you'll eventually be asked to stop.  From the sidelines / court side, you'll be asked to leave, maybe with a fastball.  This is exactly why sports photographers crave the 1DX or whatever the current king of High ISO with acceptable noise is, and shoot monster lenses to pull in more light.  Also, flash photos won't look right.  An on camera flash, even a 580 or 600 is going to look like a pop-up flash at any kind of distance.

Please keep shooting, just loose the flash.  Noise is OK.  Work with it in post.  It's normal in sports photos. Acceptable.  Yes, you will have more than the guy with $18,000 of camera and lens.  It's OK.  Consider a 300mm f4 or an f2.8 70-200. (I or II, IS or No) 

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

C28F0143 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 62