January 27, 2015, 06:01:28 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 278
1906
Canon General / Re: Bad Photography Rant
« on: July 29, 2013, 12:46:25 AM »
.
I know there are charlatans with cameras all over the place. And I know this isn't a forum for ranting about bad "photographers," but let this be a caution that if you don't have definite skills (and most here certainly DO) that it's not nice to take money from people for bad pictures.

Recently a member of my family I haven't seen in several years gave me a CD full of jpg images taken by a "professional" photographer. This person was paid $100 for two hours work taking pictures of two teen-age daughters and a couple of family portrait shots out on a seashore location. She dumped all the image files on a CD and gave them to my family member. She had been "recommended" by a hair dresser my aunt uses. Looking at the photographer's Web site she indicates she went to art schools and shot for magazines for several years. I wasn't exactly sure what my aunt wanted when she handed me the CD and asked me to "develop" the pictures and select the best 10 for printing.

Overall, the images are awful. Out of focus, grainy, even badly tilted horizons. The photographer used a Nikon D800 with a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 lens. A little research suggests it is an inexpensive lens that has a reputation for generating noise on its own. The shoot day turned cloudy with a breeze and misty rain. Setting were typically ISO 2000 around f/4.5 to 5.6. Flying hair can be a good effect, yet this photographer made no attempt not to have it flying across their faces. There are dogs in some pictures (on laps, being held, etc.) and they look scared -- a look I've never seen in a dog's eyes. I was angry when I looked at the pictures and realized she took money from my aunt for this. She even had the audacity to include a document releasing the images for print -- but reassuring that she retained all rights.

When I talked with my aunt she finally admitted she was deeply disappointed with the pictures. She thought perhaps she may be wrong and the pictures really were good, but she wanted me to see them. I had to confirm for her that bad pictures are simply bad pictures. I did soften it by suggesting maybe the photographer was trying for a "soft focus" look with the girls. Also, maybe the tilted horizons were purposed to add "drama." I told her there wasn't much I was going to be able to do but that I would pick the best 10 and have them printed by a good printer.

I cleaned up the files as best I could -- sharpening, noise reduction, horizon straightening, etc. The lens even had mustache distortion that had to be corrected! Then I sent them off to Bay Photo for printing on metallic paper. I'm hoping for the best.

Sorry for the big rant, but bad photography is unfair, and it makes me angry. Not only is the $100 (plus cost for printing) gone, but the expectation of great pictures of cherished family members has also been stolen. The kids and their parents don't live on the seashore, and they can't be reassembled for a do over.

I've often encouraged inexperienced photographers here to take opportunities given -- but only with the explicit understanding that clients know what they can expect. If you're going to present yourself as a seasoned professional, you must produce professional results!

agreed, that said $100 isn't exactly a lot for two hours of shooting and, if it had been for carefully sorted and processed RAWs which would take hours more to do, it would be insanely cheap

what is bad is that many of that type get more clients and press than some really skilled people with solid equipment, but a lot of it is just how much gumption and what sort of a promoter you are, as with well I guess many things in life

1907
Hello...I recently upgraded my crop body from a T1i to a 7D and also joined the "full-frame" world with a used 5DII.  I did not upgrade any glass...except for getting a used 70-300 IS USM lens as my EF-S 55-250 would not work on the 5DII.  I recently took my 5DII to party and shot most of time with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.  This was a lens I've always been impressed with on my T1i...in fact, every since I got it, it spent most of time on the T1i.  I have to say I was less than impressed with it's performance on the 5DII.  I had it stopped down to f/5.6 as the vignetting at wider apetures is quite noticable.

I'm now thinking of selling my T1i (with all the original accessories) along with the Tamron 28-75 and the EF-S 55-250 IS, I got at the same time as the camera, just over two years ago.  I have the BG-E5 grip, six batteries (four of which are Canon), and hoods for both lenses, as well as a few books on the T1i, that I obviously wouldn't need.  Looking at B&H trade-in values and recent posts on Craigslist, I think I could get enough to almost pay for a Canon 24-105.  I see alot of them on Craigslist, as it seems quite a few folks get this lens as a kit lens and turn around and sell it.

Any thoughts on if this would be a good move or not?

Thanks very much in advance.

    Jonathan

bad move. I thought the 24-105 was mediocre (not as good as the Tamron 28-75 actually) on FF and not as sensible as other options on APS-C. I did pay particular attention to wide side 24-28mm edge to edge performance though.

At the price it can be had for now, like $650 new split from kit at times, it's a good price, but it used to be well over-priced for the optical quality IMO.
I rate 24-70 II, tamron 24-70 VC, tamron 28-75, canon 24-70 f/4 IS all better than it optically (tamron 28-75 has no IS and very slow AF though, 2.8 II has no IS but insane IQ)

1908
PNG , Portable Network Graphics, is designed for graphics, that is illustrations that often have hard edges and gradients, they are very inefficient for jpegs of images. Not my opinion, recognised fact.

As for the artifacts you think you see, I suspect they are imaginary, don't forget this is a re-sampled screen shot of sub 100% views, there are so many stages of re-sampling here it is beyond imagination.

Overhead, sure a few hundred k is not much, however the logical extension is when you multiply everything by 3-10 times, you end up running 3-10 slower.

it still takes less space than TIFF though and you get lossless compression 16bit per channel

I wouldn't use PNG for web though, but for personal usage on your own computer.

1909
Hello, Everyone.

I changed monitors recently (low-end, consumer-grade, not graphics- or photography-specific), and Windows 7 Professional (64-bit) recognizes the replacement monitor and has assigned the associated ICC/ICM profile for it.

When I view images on my machine, they look fine.  When uploading them to the forum here, it's as if they've become desaturated or washed out.

I can simulate the desaturated look by viewing the jpg files with no color profile associated.  Once I make the association, the viewer I use recognizes it, and the image looks normal.  Photoshop renders the image properly all the time.  Even "Windows Preview" renders the image properly.

Does anyone know what I should do in order to upload an image here that will look "normal" and not desaturated?  I thought I had jpg files saved with embedded color profiles, but maybe I missed something.  With my other monitor, this issue did not exist.

it sounds like you are uploading adobergb or prophotorgb files and then using a non-color managed web-browser. Use firefox with color-management set properly and it'll look fine (although if the images don't need the extra wide gamut colors then it's better to convert to sRGB first so people running whatever browser won't have issues, if has really rich colors of certain types wide gamut is good though).

1910
Technical Support / Re: Can I remove water droplet marks in PP?
« on: July 28, 2013, 06:46:37 PM »
Recently I was on a catamaran trip off Hawaii and taking pictures with my 7D+17-55. Unfortunately, the spray was hitting the front of the lens (actually the UV filter) continuously, and I didn't have soft cloth to wipe to wipe it off, so tiny droplets remained even as I continued shooting. As a result, I have multiple small blotches all over some of the pictures. Is there a quick and easy way to fix this? I have Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3 at my disposal, but I am not very familiar with photographic post-processing (although I have extensively used Photoshop for fluorescent microscopy). I will really appreciate any advice, and post some pictures of the issue as soon as I figure out why this site won't let me upload the jpegs.

content aware healing brush might work OK, size the brush to the right size and click over each droplet, it depends, tons of droplets might confuse it and it's not magic either

1911
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 28, 2013, 05:22:15 PM »
fuji has more DR than nikon sensor and they are being outsold by nikon too... so better the DR worst the sales of cameras; canon execs have to care about their stakeolders, that's the reason because they dont improve DR on their sensors

A lot of quite possible false assumptions being made here. Maybe Fuji would be even worse off if they had poor DR. Maybe Canon would realllllly have been spanking Nikon if they had moved top AF down the liner sooner and improved DR sooner. Who knows. But you just can't point to sales and say that what they did necessarily was for the best for sales (and it certainly isn't best for the user.... well unless maybe you own a LOT of stock hah).

1912
Lenses / Re: Buy 50mm f1.2L now or wait for the II?
« on: July 28, 2013, 05:17:48 PM »
I'd wait for the II and just get the well not sure what maybe the sigma 1.4 for now? Canon 1.4 is fine but the AF is even worse than the sigma (although tolerable, sort of, on 5D3/1DX) and the AF was designed wrong and breaks easily (sometimes by itself, nearly right out of the box).

I have never tried the 1.2 but people complain about extreme focus shift (?) and that it is easily softer away from center frame than the 1.4 stopped down to the same apertures (?) although depending how you shoot the latter might not matter, some claim it has richer pop for objects in the center, some of 1.2ness of it is wasted by many DSLR sensors since they don't gran the outer rays all that well. I don't know. I've seen many people say it was an over-priced waste, but some other swear by it.

1913
I'm wanting to do some test comparisons on image quality differences between a 400D, and a 5D mk2.
Could I take some pictures on the 400D, then take the CF card out and take some pictures on the 5Dmk2 without having to reformat it in the 5Dmk2?
I'm borrowing the 5d from a friend and only have one CF card and can't keep hold of his CF card.
I don't want to buy another CF card just to do this test.
Sorry if the answer to this is obvious (either yes or no), but I don't know it!

Thanks

Yes, no problem at all. I've never had any problems hot swapping cards even between brands such as between a SONY P&S, Canon DSLR and Nikon DSLR for instance.

1914
EOS Bodies / Re: 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained
« on: July 28, 2013, 04:41:11 AM »
Birds in flight, you say? If this video doesn't convince you how fast Dual Pixel PDAF on the 70D is, I don't know what will.  It can track a BIF over a field (2nd video from the top of the page, around the 0:46 mark): http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/70d/info/af-tech/index.html

After seeing this I'm even more convinced now about this revolutionary tech.  8)

That is pretty impressive. Combine 5D3 ML RAW video quality with that AF and that would be some handy video beast making some reallllly difficult wildlife/macro action stuff remarkable less crazy near impossible to pull off.

1915
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 28, 2013, 03:35:11 AM »
People should just get out and take pictures...

We do though, maybe even especially us DRippers. I took 360GB of photos over the last six weeks!
And 500GB of HD video! :D

1916
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 27, 2013, 06:06:00 PM »
In case you haven't noticed, the dual pixel technology, smartly combined with the dual exposure trick that Magic Lantern uncovered, will allow dramatic improvement of DR. I presume Canon is working on it, but probably - like the on-sensor AF- it takes some time to get the technology right.

We will see. Not sure and you do cut down the sensor light collecting area by half and so on. Maybe they CAN get something out if for more DR, not sure. They haven't seemed to peep about DR at all though and you'd think they;d be bragging if it was workable.

1917
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 27, 2013, 05:56:53 PM »
Quote from: LetTheRightLensIn link=topic=16081.


They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.

Maybe not when using the DXo scores, in practice I've found the 5Dmkii to be significantly better than mki, the 6D better than the mkii and so on; the DXo scores are similar. Maybe some of this is to do with the more gradual clipping to high and low lights, I'm not sure, but they have definitely been getting better.

Well actually they do not all measure the same on DxO. The 5D measures a full stop worse at ISO100. And the 6D measures a little bit better at ISO100 than the 5D2 plus it has less pattern noise in deep shadows so it feels more manipulable real world and it does have a bit better DR than the 5D3 no doubt, but none of them are any better or even as good, other than the 6D, which is merely as good, as the old 1Ds3 from years back and that one isn't even close to any of the best cameras for ISO100 DR on the market for the last number of years, even some P&S, and not talking big ones likes Sony R1 but little pocket things, have better DR scores at their lowest ISO these days. All these cameras have linear capture. Canon DR slowly got slightly worse after the 1Ds3 and now has gotten back to that old level again. Other cameras have gotten 2-3+ stops better while all Canon did is manage to crawl BACK UP to where they had been back then to begin with (although they do manage it now in a camera vastly less expensive than the 1Ds3 at least).

(Not that it was the topic, but at high ISO they did improve DR some. 5D3 is somewhat better than the 5D2 and the 1DX and 6D are definitely better still, quite solidly better than all the older Canon models, and at the very top with cams like D4.)

Anyway I've said enough on DR in this thread. Back to the high MP talk? Bayer 75MP for great detail and reach and superb oversampling? 3-layer 25MP for full color per pixel? If the latter can it pull it off without compromising DR (since those types of designs in the past have tended to struggle a bit with SNR and real lot with DR from what I hear)?

1918
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 27, 2013, 05:44:12 PM »
... they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality.

Sorry, but why do they 'need' to do that?  Besides the fact that you and some others want them to, I mean...   ::)  There's a small minority of people who DRone on about this issue, but a small minority carries little weight in terms of impacting R&D priorities.

It's interesting how people say Canon is 'sleeping' and 'not innovative', but when they come out with a technology that represents a profound improvement for AF, those same people dismiss it...because it's not the innovation they wanted.  News flash: Canon sells cameras designed for the mass market, not designed for a small minority. The fact that they have been and remain the market leader says they've been making the right design decisions for that mass market.

I did say the dual-pixel AF was innovative. That is pretty cool.

But that still doesn't answer the fact that their low ISO quality has not improved one bit, actually a trace worse, for well over half a decade going more towards a decade now. Isn't it about time low ISO IQ got a look at again? Canon kept going on in their PDF about how they always are looking to find way to let people be able to shoot in more conditions. So that also means they should be looking into improving DR at low ISO.

I don't think the DR people are such a tiny minority as you think either. One could also say it's easy for those who don't care about DR to just toss it off a silly thing only a few extreme users care about. I see a lot more talking about that than the poor video AF actually if you want to go by forum polling.

The 5D3 getting top AF in it was awesome, but that wasn't innovative that was just a marketing change matching what Nikon was doing for quite a while already. One should also note that it was something people droned on endless in the forums. It seems that is what it takes for them to take notice. Had we not drone on about that maybe the 5D3 would be 7D AF AND the old sensor. I bet you would've loved that even more right? And don't forget it takes a LOT of time to get new tech going for sensors so if people wait until they have truly had it with the DR then it's wayyyy too late and you'd be waiting years beyond that still.

The RAW video in the 5D3 is a revolution and quite rather astonishing, although we'd have never ever seen it had Canon been the only ones at work. They credit for making the HW in the camera being to do it though and not blocking Magic Lantern.

If you want me to ping Nikon. Well they pretty much muddled up liveview and didn't do anything all that impressive for video on their recent cameras. 5D3 pulls those off with help of ML infinitely better than any recent (or older) Nikon and even without ML 5D3 pulls those off better.

Since I also have a video shooter side in me too though, now that we have ML RAW and video extras, the 5D3 finally is a pretty revolutionary DSLR IMO though, every bit as much as the D800, just in very different ways. For stills, it's a really fantastic body, top notch with lots of abilities and superb UI, saddled with a sensor that is somewhat regularly frustrating for low ISO shooting in this day and age (although pretty pleasing for high iso if not quite state of the art as D4,1DX,6D; it is a bit surprising they held back the high ISO tech and re-used older stuff for the 5D3 when they put it all in the 6D so relatively soon after).


1919
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 27, 2013, 02:50:47 PM »
Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3 :(  of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection ;) etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)

DRip DRop DRip DRop waiting for the DRivel to stop.   ::)

It'll stop when either everyone who cares finally gives up and gives in and switches brands or Canon finally decides to care about DR again. I'm glad for all the DRip DRip. And I bet that if they ever do, all the ones tossing around DRip DRIp terms will be the first ones to flood the forums bashing Nikon for being a joke for not quite matching current Canon DR, just watch. The old if Canon has it it's IMPORTANT and if they don't it's insignificant drivel.


Quote
Canon's real competition in the dSLR market, i.e., other dSLRs, have had better DR for years.  Canon sold more dSLRs than any of their competitors for those same years.  An easy conclusion for Canon to draw is that improving DR isn't a wise investment of R&D resources.  Seems they prioritized on-CMOS AF...

I hope not, but some signs do point that way. I really don't know that I want to have to hope for a 5D5, we'd be talking years and years of not getting to use state of the art DR and who knows if they'd even feel the need by the 5D5? Otherwise I like Canon more, but....

The dual-pixel AF is cool no doubt and something they deserve plenty of credit for, but all the same they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality. They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.

1920
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: July 27, 2013, 12:38:15 AM »
Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3 :(  of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection ;) etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 278