April 19, 2014, 05:13:26 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 - Skulker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:16:16 PM »
I use the 300 Mk11 with the 2X Mk111.

I love it its a very useful combination, very usable.

Here is an image taken with it, in poor light and pouring rain. First shot is the whole image, second is a crop of the head.

Both images processed in LR with sharpening @ 25.

2
That said, I question how the OP was contacted by the bride. This question was brought up earlier in the thread, but never answered by the OP. Unless the pro photographer himself gave her the contact info, then it would seem the OP promoted himself at the wedding, at least to the extent that he provided the bride or someone close to her with information as to who he is and how to contact him. This is way beyond the bounds of what is ethical in such a situation, whether hired by the photographer, or in this case allowed to 'tag along' at his client's event.

Sorry I thought I did. The bride asked my number to the cameraman (who I met the same day) and the cameraman called the photographer to have my number telling him that he needed me for a job. I didn't give any detail to anyone at the wedding because I thought it wasn't professional neither ethical to promote myself while another photographer was hired to photograph the event.

so there was deliberate deceitful behaviour and you knew it.

3
My first thought was that the bride wanted cheap images.

I may be too cynical but without any justification other than experience I would assume the following:

1) The original Photographer (the official one that is) was to be paid for prints or digital files.
2) The bride has seen a way to reduce the price by cutting out the original professional.


Maybe the original photographer was rubbish - But if he's that bad why was the OP going to him asking for "experience"?

Maybe the OP is a "natural" wedding photographer - If he is he will be able to make money in the future.


Either way I would recommend the OP goes to the original photographer and tries to work something out. If he can't come to an agreement then chalk it up to experience. I would NOT recommend going behind the back of the professional who was kind enough to help you out, it won't be worth it in the end.

4
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 08, 2014, 04:12:00 PM »
Here's a BIF. But I thought as an image on its own it lacked reason. So I thought I would try it as a "water color" look alike.

I'm not sure what to do with the other, but something will happen to it.

5
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 08, 2014, 03:25:30 PM »
Marsh Harrier, Somerset, UK

One of the least widespread birds of prey in the UK, and has been a subject of some research for myself in the last few years. First shot of the harrier worth sharing for myself, if mostly for the lighting.


Marsh Harrier on the Westhay Marshes, Somerset by gilbo65, on Flickr

Shot with a 400mm f/5.6 L. Handheld.

Somehow they look great above the reeds to me, well caught.

Sometimes they interact with the starlings trying to roost, its worth looking out for some time.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 03, 2014, 05:40:20 PM »
I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.


Focal length can affect DoF - it just depends on what else you do or do not hold constant.  If you change focal length without changing subject distance, you're changing DoF.  If you change subject distance without changing focal length, you're changing DoF.  In each case, you're changing the magnification - the size of the subject.  But if you keep the size of the subject constant (e.g., move closer as the focal length gets shorter), then DoF remains constant for a given aperture - that's why the statement that DoF depends on magnification and aperture is a better way to phrase it.

Put another way, DoF is determined by magnification and aperture, and magnification is determined by focal length and subjet distance.


A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread.  ;D   Its shown quite well in this article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

I don't see how the context of the article would contradict anything said in this thread.

The article studies "zooming by feet", while keeping the same sensor format.

The thread discusses changing sensor formats, while keeping the perspective intact.


I'm not sure if you are thinking that I claimed or implied that "the context of the article would contradict anything said in this thread". Au contraire what I was saying was that some people don't seem to grasp this simple relationship, the subject of the article I linked to. It is rather counter intuitive and many people have not grasped the link. I thought the article was a good clear explanation that restricted itself to a relevant and concise description, without going of at a tangent into irrelevant areas as so many do. It was jdramirez who questioned what someone had said. (and pleased don't read that to be a criticism of jdramirez from my point of view he was just asking for clarification and there is nothing wrong with that.)

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 03, 2014, 03:53:55 PM »

A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread.  ;D   Its shown quite well in this article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml


Note that no where in the luminous landscape article did the guy refer to subject isolation.


you are, I'm sure, entirely correct, although i can't say i bothered to check. Also i don't belive he mentioned a lot of other things, probably because they were not related to what he was talking about.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 03, 2014, 12:30:44 PM »
So to further my question:

16-35mm f/2.8 L II on a 5D3 Vs 10-22mm on a 70D, which theoretically would give the better image?

Are you photographing apples or oranges?

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 03, 2014, 12:28:56 PM »
I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.


Focal length can affect DoF - it just depends on what else you do or do not hold constant.  If you change focal length without changing subject distance, you're changing DoF.  If you change subject distance without changing focal length, you're changing DoF.  In each case, you're changing the magnification - the size of the subject.  But if you keep the size of the subject constant (e.g., move closer as the focal length gets shorter), then DoF remains constant for a given aperture - that's why the statement that DoF depends on magnification and aperture is a better way to phrase it.

Put another way, DoF is determined by magnification and aperture, and magnification is determined by focal length and subjet distance.


A lot of people seem to have difficulty grasping this concept. Including some who think they know better in this thread.  ;D   Its shown quite well in this article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Hardware Hack for EOS Cameras Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:20:37 PM »
I'm sure Iif it works there will be plenty of people willing to give it a go. I won't be near the front of the que but will be watching with interest. But more DR is not near the top of my wish list, and video anything is not even on my list, ATM.

If it really works without much downside it might spur canon on with improvements, that would be a good thing.

11
I can't help thinking the idea behind the original question is very valid and mature. To me it makes more sense than all the fuss about multi mega pixels.

But ....... I'm an engineer and I don't think like a marketing person.

I think your idea would be a good camera but don't hold your breath.

As others have said a 6D is probably as close as you will get.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 15, 2014, 05:47:20 PM »
Its just amazing that you can take such a shot at that ISO. We are so lucky to have cameras that can do this.

Depends on the type of shot - converting to b&w usually reduces a lot of noise and eliminates the problem of missing color accuracy @high iso. This shot also is a good example of texture that is very sympathetic to high noise reduction plus (edge) sharpening - so at this export size, it probably could have been done at iso 102400 and still look the same :-)

Even from your point of view your talking about ISO102400. Lets just assume you are correct and that it depend on the type of shot. Its not so long ago, well within my photographic experience, that ISO 800 was considered high. Now someone can come along and try to prove how clever they are by splitting hairs and saying say something like "well you could push ISO800 film" but whatever spin anyone puts on it from my point of view ISO102400 is just as amazing as ISO12800.

We are lucky to have such equipment.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 15, 2014, 05:12:31 PM »
My 5D3 at 12,800. NR using ACR




Its just amazing that you can take such a shot at that ISO. We are so lucky to have cameras that can do this.

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: MY dog
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:56:54 PM »
a year ago this poor dog had been locked up for 5 years, but he's so well behaved when he looked for permission to go a single quiet word was all it took and he never  took even one step towards them.


Please! Can I go! by Tom W W, on Flickr

15
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:54:54 PM »
I was walking with the dog today and walked up on these deer. This is were they stopped running! they were much closer at first.

Taken with a 100-400@ 100mm f11 1/90sec


Please! Can I go! by Tom W W, on Flickr

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21