December 18, 2014, 10:32:30 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 68
571
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: In Camera Nosie/Sharpen, etc - JPEG Only?
« on: September 10, 2012, 08:53:23 PM »
The answer depends on your RAW processor (sort of).  The RAW data does not get altered by the settings, but your RAW processor may apply those settings in what you initially see on screen.

The best way to understand this is set your camera to black and white, then shoot a RAW+JPEG.  The JPEG image is black and white, and you cannot bring the color back.

The RAW image, depending on the RAW processing software (DPP, Adobe Camera Raw, etc) you are using, may show the image in color or in B&W.  If in B&W, finding that setting in the software and shifting it back to color will return the photo to color.  Because, the color data was there in the RAW, but the display of it may be effected by your settings.  Make sense?

572
1D X Sample Images / Re: Who is this idiot??
« on: September 10, 2012, 08:23:27 PM »
A little fill flash would have given you some catchlights in the eyes , maybe a cooler fill, or some gel.  Maybe a more relaxed pose, and a better background.

Apart from that I love the potential, your horizion is level enough and you've showed a considered disreagard for the rule of thirds.

When shooting a self portrait of yourself and new best friend (the camera), a flash in the mirror is going to be pretty bad. :) (This photo is not of me, by me, or for me)


20/05/2010 (Day 4.140) - Bad Self-Portrait by Kaptain Kobold, on Flickr

Pro tip: if you flip the image left to right, it's a little harder to tell it's a mirror photo. (and a cowboy hat helps with any portrait)

12234 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

573
If you want to dig a little farther, and understand why your camera can only sync the flash at 1/200 and slower, here is a great article: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/fp-shutter.html

574
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X AF at f/8 with the Kenko 1.4TC
« on: September 05, 2012, 12:42:43 AM »
Why?  To sell more big aperture lenses?  To cut down on complaints and returns of lenses not focusing perfectly at f8 in questionable light?  Just to tick off people used to the f8 shooting?   Who knows?

My guess is some very smart engineer said: listen we can focus really really good at f5.6, or just good at f8... Which do I want to be known for?

575
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X AF at f/8 with the Kenko 1.4TC
« on: September 04, 2012, 08:23:42 PM »
OK, to understand why this works, you need to understand the camera refuses to AF with the Canon extender because it's being told there is an f8 (or f11 for the 2X) lens on the front.  The software of the camera then declares "hell no".

The Kenko converter is passing the f stop of the lens without the change in aperture.  So the camera thinks there is an f5.6 lens on it.  Now you still need decent light and a contrasty subject, more than without the telecenter, but it still works.

Why the -1?  Because he camera is metering at f8 while being told it has f5.6.  So before the photo is taken, it is metering wrong.

576
Sports / Re: 1DX & 500mm f/4L IS II Varsity Football
« on: September 02, 2012, 06:56:27 PM »
Yup, making a living as a photographer is 80-90% selling, and much less time taking the photos.  The big money? is made by the franchise, not the photographer.  The Getty sports photographer at the Super Bowl may have a photo sell for $$$$, but it's not his photo, it's Getty's.  His salary, and residuals are probably good, but he did not get to go to the Superbowl his first year, maybe his 20th.  And his plumber still makes more money than him.

There are exceptions, but photography is a bad way to make a good living.  Just like with acting, 99% never quite the day job.

Awesome Photos btw.  I'll bet the photographer may have had something to do with that, not just the gear  :).

I am in the same boat.  I am told all the time: Dude why don't you go pro?  Dude, because i enjoy eating and living under a roof and seeing my kids in shirts and stuff....

577
Lenses / Re: 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F.28L IS macro
« on: September 01, 2012, 10:45:50 PM »
Lord.  ::)  The IS is better, it has IS for example.  It is more expensive.

So buy the one that you can afford.

578
Street & City / Re: Night Skyline
« on: August 30, 2012, 11:53:49 PM »
Way underexposed.  Night skylines are a great time for bracketing, or even HDR.

And a tripod (or a table, wall, anything to hold the camera for a few seconds, etc) is of course critical.

579
Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses
« on: August 29, 2012, 08:24:58 PM »
The 50L is the sharpest 50mm from 1.2-2.8. After that the 1.4 is better but yes, once I bought the 50L I never wanted anything else. 8)

Its AF was slightly faster than the 1.4 IMO, and hit better.

2X the price?  Where are you shopping.  I got mine new for < $400, love it.
Here's a short video shot with it: Monster Bokeh

580
If you are on the sidelines and can have only 1 lens, I'd take a 70-200, IS if you can have it. 300 will be too long much of the time.  If you have 2 cameras and 2 lenses, this would be great for long shots.  And of course detail on the field, off, coaches, cheerleaders etc.

I have a 400mm and shot sports with a 7D, and it was awsome for the loooooong shots, but my 70-200 was getting 80% of my on field shots. 

Up in the stands, the longer lenses will be awesome.  I shoot pro soccer from time to time, and sometimes I can take the field, and sometimes not.  Up in the stands, the 400mm really pulls in the action.

581
Lenses / Re: Lens choices for airshow
« on: August 27, 2012, 10:47:15 PM »
There is probably no lens you could not use at an air show.  From Fisheye to ultra telephoto, there are plenty of subjects to use them all.  Of what you listed I would not leave any behind.  I would take the monopod. 

5D3 focusing is good, and of course you can practice/experiment on passing cars.

Try and get some shots the other guys with the same better gear will not.  Guy poking his head out of the top of a C-130, etc.  Bring lots of cards and batteries...  Remember  the Show is not over until he fat lady is the last one sitting.

IMG_1660 by TexPhoto, on Flickr

582
In my early days of photography I often went with 2 sigmas instead of one Name brand.  My first SLR was actually a Minolta, and i had a 28-70, and a 70-210.  Loved my lenses and shot a ton with them.

Now that time is shorter than money, I have 10 Canon Lenses, and one Sigma 50mm f1.4.  Great little lens, way ahead of the tired Canon equivalent.  Sigma has made some dogs (170-500mm was  stinker.)  But overall, they make good stuff.  When i needed service, my local show is a Sigma Shop (and Canon and Nikon, and...)  All factory warrantee authorized.

Some of the new stuff from Sigma is top rate.

Buy what makes you happy. 

583
Lenses / Re: Help! used lens problem...
« on: August 26, 2012, 08:20:46 PM »
If you only saved $100, it does not sound like you got that good a deal.  Even if perfect, your not getting a warrantee.  I'd want to save 20% or preferably more.

It sure does not sound like something that will effect your photos.  And remember, you could have had this show up in a new lens shortly after buying.

584
I live in the Caribbean, and humity and condensation are constantly a problem.  Some techniques we use are heat the cameras front lens with the cars heater.  Leave the camera bag outside to get used to the temperature outside before your remove the camera.  Don't bring the camera into an air conditioned car or room, but if you must, put it in a cooler ( they keep things warm too)


585
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Where am I ?
« on: August 18, 2012, 10:26:41 PM »
Self portrait, from my Balconey.

IMG_1512 by TexPhoto, on Flickr

The other direction:

IMG_6870 by TexPhoto, on Flickr

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 68