November 21, 2014, 10:14:51 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 - TexPhoto

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 65
31
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. ;)

32
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.

33
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.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

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

34
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.

35
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.

36
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.

37
Post Processing / Re: Digital "Enlarger"
« on: October 01, 2014, 01:27:44 AM »
If you want to go analog, why not shoot film?  The equipment is incredibly inexpensive, and freely available.  You could shoot 35mm, medium format, or even large format. 

Then enlarge with a regular enlarger.  Again, so cheap to buy used.

Heck you could shoot digital, print 8x10 at Walmart, set up a copy stand and shoot film of the prints, then print via regular enlarger.

38
Technical Support / Re: What are the best ND Grads? No circular!
« on: September 28, 2014, 03:26:48 PM »
I had a nice set of Singh-Ray filters, but gave it up to just shoot bracketed photos and do my filtering in post.  If shooting landscape on a tripod, and the wind is not whipping the trees, shooting a bracket set of three photos lets you combine them after the fact in any way you please. 

The Singh-Rays were very nice though.

39
Technical Support / Re: Downside Up?
« on: September 28, 2014, 03:22:05 PM »
I hadn't thought of the ball cap idea but recently I wanted a picture of the rear suspension on a '57 Chevy hot rod that was sitting in bright sunlight....with a chromed bumper on the rear.  I got down on the ground (after putting down a blanket I carry in my truck...I'm turning into a wimp in my old age) and used the camera upside down so it
lit up the undercarriage and not the bumper.  Worked great.

Great minds think alike! I have done something similar, a diffuser helps.  You can even touch the flash to the ground and get a little stability.

With a vertical grip, hand holding this position is really easy, you essentially hold the vertical grip the same way you'd hold a normal camera when shooting vertical. 

40
Technical Support / Re: Downside Up?
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:29:46 AM »
I occasionally shoot upside down to put the flash under the camera. Essentially puts the flash opposite the sunlight.  Works great for putting light under a baseball cap etc.

Images from my 5D3 are upside-down when I open them in any raw editor including DPP, so I imagine the camera is not recording it being upside-down. No big deal.

Can you open a RAW file and flip it and then save it?  No, but you generality can't save any AW file in it's native format after making changes.  Just save it as .psd, .tiff or whatever your preferred format is.

41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 27, 2014, 12:54:36 PM »
I moved from Nikon to Canon for the 5DII.  It was revolutionary.  Nikon 800 series cameras are in that spot today.  Canon really needs to answer this call. 

Should I jump?  No I don't think so.  My investment is too large, and I am too old, and my pics with Canon too awesome.  And I see a comeback in the near future.

42
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f/4L IS II USM Purchase
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:49:00 PM »
The 600mm is awesome, but it's not the lens for sports.  I'd go with a 400mm f2.8 IS II, or a 200-400 f4 1.4X.

The 600 is just too long much of the time for sports, and for a night game the f2.8 of the 400 can be critical.    The 400mm with the 1.4X converter and 2.0 Converter teleconverters gives you a 400 2.8, a 560 f4, and an 800 f5.6.

The 600 is a great wildlife lens and also pairs nicely with the extenders, but I like the 400.

Anyway good luck with whichever you purchase.  Shoot the hell out of it. 

43
Sports / Re: FutBall / Soccer / Football
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:49:08 PM »
REX17873 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX18111h by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX18212 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX18341 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

44
Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:25:52 PM »
Warning: Climbing on to my soapbox
I cringe when I see the "It's pretty near to what our eyes see" or similar comments.  Our eyes see 2 round images that have partial overlap with much more color and detail in the center, and you nose in the middle of it.   Our brains turn that into a a 3D image that seems to have even color. 

Our pictures are 2x3 because that was the way film was, and film was that way because it's efficient to make that way.  Most books and printed materials are similar for the similar reasons. Whether making paper by hand or in rolls, 2x3ish was most efficient.  Thus it looks normal to us. 

If we wanted photos or video to have a view similar you to our eyes, wouldn't we stand close enough to fill our field of vision?  Or maybe just have a nose printed in the image.

Climbing down from soapbox

Anyway, why not crop to what looks best for the image for you?  99% of our photos are never going to be printed, or stuck in a frame.   Crop freely, or stick with an aspect ratio that feels good to you.  Be an artist, not a follower.

45
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS on sunny days and white jerseys
« on: September 25, 2014, 12:36:33 AM »
I am guessing you are shooting with a 1DX, and I think that might be more the issue.  It is certainly possible the AF sensor is just blown out and can't see the contrast.  I shoot 1D4 and a 400 f2.8 IS I, but I have never had a chance to shoot in bright sunlight. 

Maybe run some tests with an ND filter?  Crumpled white T-shirt in the back yard.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 65