October 25, 2014, 05:09:37 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 62
EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:40:25 PM »
Annnnnnd this is why I'm not a pro. 

Mackguyver:  ETTR is not new to me at all, I've been doing that for some time.  That principal is well in-hand for me.

But if I understood your and Jrista's posts correctly, I just learned that my in-camera WB does affect my RAW files due to its effect on metering.  That's a big deal for me, as I shoot everything in AWB and JPG+RAW, and I simply correct the white balance in my keeper RAW files.

So now I do need to sweat my WB.  I always thought that RAW alleviated me of that burden and I just focused on a general (non-color-specific) histo. 

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: SL1 as a "travel" body
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:15:01 PM »

ISO samples are here in one convenient place:

The 40D is not there, but more modern cameras are there for comparison:

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:02:56 PM »
I have often struggled with red objects in my 5d3. I wrote last year about it but did not get any replies. Yesterday while trying out my new 85 1.2 ii, I saw the same issue.

Red flowers come out in an over saturated red haze. The other colors seem saturated just fine, but the reds are over powered so much that the flowers lose detail.

I can reduced saturation in LR, but then the whole image looks washed out... the issue is only with reds.

If I reduce just red (Red channel only) , then it lacks punch, although I get back details in the flower...

Has anyone else observed this?

Looks like your auto white balance is thrown off by the amount of 'green' in the photo (greens look too blue). Try a WB setting of 'daylight' or 'cloudy'. I find this gives the best overall results if shooting in a 'green' environment.

Good tip, but I've seen this even 'as shot' from my RAW processing in ACR.  I clip on my reds all the time, and tweaking the WB isn't doing it for me.  I end up having to toy with sliders for saturation and (a) waste time doing that and (b) never like the output when I do.

This also isn't limited to strong green backgrounds being a trigger.  I've seen this happen on anything with a strong field of red in the frame regardless of background.  I am talking about the RAW file and not about picture-style related saturation effects with onboard JPGs.

I'm not a pro.  I like to keep my RAW processing time down to around 60-120s per shot, so color is one of the things I would prefer to get right in-camera and only need to run global saturation/luminance changes on in RAW processing.  There has got to be a way to manange this in-camera before you clip. 

Mackguyver's suggestion (see page 2 of this thread) to use multi-color histo and avoid clipping the shadows is interesting and will be tried out.  Is exposure only a global adjustment for auto exposure modes?  Is there anyway to run auto-exposure independently for R, G and B?  I'm getting a headache thinking about how that would not work -- colors would shift, the metering may not work that way, etc. -- but please sate my curiosity and tell me anyway.   :D

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 11:16:28 AM »
Excellent thread.  This topic has vexed me on 5D3 flower work.  The 5D3 has always been oversaturated on reds in my hands, and I seem to lose something when I try to rein in the reds in RAW processing.

I don't want a great post-processing tool for this specific issue.  More commentary on in-camera work, please.  How do I preview this is going to happen, and when I find it, how do I compensate for it?

Keep talking, people.

- A


I was curious about this, so I looked up a few.  Ever-trusty-TDP has this anecdotally listed in some reviews but not in it's handy specifications pull-down, so I had to go to (roll eyes) Ken Rockwell's site for this:

Just for the filter threads...

24-70 F/4L = plastic
24-70 F/2.8L II = plastic
24-105L = plastic
70-200 F/4L IS = plastic
70-200 F/2.8L IS II = metal
70-300L = metal
35L = metal
50L = plastic
85L = metal
100L = plastic
135L = plastic

So it's a bit of a mixed bag.  Some wonderful lenses on that list have plastic threads and seem to be doing just fine.  But I do understand the confidence metal components can inspire:  my old 24-70 F/2.8L I was a pickle jar full of metal, and am fairly certain I could have used it as a hammer.

- A

My one experience with a lens being completely destroyed by a drop was entirely the fault of using plastic for the filter threads.  Had they used stainless steel or aluminum, it would have bent a little, and the filter would have shattered, and that's it.  Instead, the filter threads shattered, and the lens filter (whose threads were made of metal as they should be) dug into the front glass.  The cost of replacing the front glass was more than the lens was worth, so I considered it a complete loss and moved on, but I'm very wary of plastic parts on lenses these days as a result.

At the very least, filter threads on a lens should always be made of metal.  Anything else is a hack.

I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree.  Lugging around heavier items sucks all the time as insurance for something that doesn't happen so often.  I have had one straight drop of my gear in 10 years of shooting with SLRs (and everything was fine anyway). 

Provided the weather sealing doesn't suffer and they choose plastics for the long-term that are UV/oxidization resistant, I'll choose lighter weight over a sturdier material every time.  I'd love to see even my tank-like 70-200 F/2.8 IS II get the weight reduction treatment if I could.

Now, if I was shooting sports or covering a war zone, the calculus might change.  But until then, I'd like to sweat less and shoot in higher comfort.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: August 08, 2014, 04:28:55 PM »
I'm fiddling with it now.  Is microcontrast just DXO's term for the clarity slider from ACR?  Seems very similar.  It's a 'more detail at the cost of an HDR look' sort of tradeoff to me.

- A
Yes, that's a good way to put it.  I generally go light with that one, maybe +5 to +10 if needed.  Also, if you expose to the right (or have shots with blown out highlights) the "Highlight Recovery - Strong" in the Exposure dropdown is pretty amazing.

The functionality is impressive but the controls/layout are a mouse fest.  Not overly fond of that.  And it really crawls on my old MacBook Pro for most tasks.  Only the noise reduction previews take this long on ACR.

I've collared a few keeper RAW files from older shoots that capture the standard things I need to wrestle with in ACR.  We'll see how this does, thanks.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:27:09 PM »
DxO might be a good choice for you as it's really designed for two types of people - users like yourself who prefer to have the tool do most of the work, and users like me who are insanely slightly obsessive about processing 100% of their photos from RAW.  The basic processing works extremely well and the general sliders are easy to use to tweak your photos a bit, but there's lots more if you get into it.

On the other hand, the interface isn't the most intuitive and you have to export everything to file (or other apps) and that can be a little hard to get used to compared to other apps.  I'd recommend downloading the free trial to see if it's for you.  These two tutorials should get you started:



It's typically a love/hate thing with DxO, but try to be patient at first, it really is a great program once you get the hang of it.

I'm fiddling with it now.  Is microcontrast just DXO's term for the clarity slider from ACR?  Seems very similar.  It's a 'more detail at the cost of an HDR look' sort of tradeoff to me.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: August 08, 2014, 12:28:19 PM »
Yes, DxO does sharpening as well, and it's probably the best and coolest correction they do as part of the profile because it's done per the lens's "softness" profile.  That means that it sharpens very little in the center and more and more towards the edges.  It's also done using some method that produces little-to-no artifacts, at least at the default setting.  For me, it's great because the default settings work very well in 90% of the photos I take and that saves me from the time needed to sharpen like I do with ACR.

Here's more info if anyone is interested: https://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/tutorials/enhance-sharpness-your-camera-dxo-optics-pro

...and yes, DxO should pay me for being such a big fan/supporter...but they don't!

Not being a pro, I don't like spending much time in post-processing.  So I've always been a lazy 'global corrector' with the sharpness slider in ACR rather than masking before sharpening in PS.  It's a terrible habit but a lot of the alternatives to my really quick ACR-->PS-->JPG workflow force me to migrate my universe into their databases.  Believe it or not, I warehouse all my stuff in vanilla iPhoto as it pushes to all my devices so well (and I'm very happy with it). 

But I would love a smarter RAW processing tool, especially to avoid global sharpening.  Keep mind that I'm only RAW processing perhaps 3-5% of my shots.

So if I could just use a better tool as my RAW processing middleman and either save high quality JPGs or pipe to PS for heavy lifting on panos and such, I might be interested.  Does DXO Optics Pro do that, and if so, is there a demo I could try to see how it stacks up against my ACR files?

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: August 08, 2014, 11:25:44 AM »
P.S. the profile from DxO seems to work exceptionally well.  I applied it to my test shots and the 16-35 f/4 IS comes out quite a bit sharper than the corrected 24-70 f/2.8 II photos!  That seems crazy but is what I'm seeing.  I'll have to play with it some more this weekend and do some more side-by-side photos, assuming the weather cooperates.

That's really odd -- your lens profile is affecting it's sharpness? 

In ACR, profiles in there are for lens corrections:  vignetting, distortion, chromatic adjustments, etc. but not for sharpness.  You'd never want an apply-to-all-shots-from-this-lens sort of change to something that would vary for reasons other than the lens.  In other words, I ratchet my sharpening up or down based on the light I had and the resulting ISO I had to use.  Do why is the DXO profile bundling sharpness with the usual lens corrections?

Please forgive my ignorance.  I've always been an ACR guy and did not know this about DXO's tools.

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?
« on: August 06, 2014, 11:42:35 AM »
As I've posted elsewhere, consider that you can't enter the MF market with just an outsourced sensor.  You need a new stable of lenses, too. 

Think of how many mounts that the big 2 are currently supporting:  Nikon has CX / DX / FX mounts already, and Canon has EF, EF-S, PL and the spectacularly-well-supported EF-M [cough cough].

I just don't see either taking on another mount.  That's a massive investment to just get a foot in the door of a very competitive marketplace -- making your money back is questionable in that environment, regardless of your Brand's appeal.

What I could see is Canon or Nikon doing is using their size/cash to get a leg up in MF.  They could either:

  • Buy an MF company outright.  "All your base are belong to us."   :P
  • Strike an m43-like licensing deal with a current MF company to share the mount design; all current lenses at this company plus all of Canon or Nikon's new lenses in this design would work with each other's bodies.  That way, Canon or Nikon (whoever does this) only needs to come out with a great body and they can hit the market running.  As this (in the long term) likely will mean the end of the current MF company, one would think that they'd have to be pretty desperate to accept these terms, or they'd charge nearly as much as selling the entire company for such an arrangement.

And for those saying that FF will get to MF quality soon, the Camera Store did a head to head to with the D800 against the new Pentax MF rig with this new sensor, and from what little I saw, it wasn't really that close.  Shockingly, the larger sensor prevailed.

- A

Oh I hate this. I sold the 16-35 f2.8L II, got the Zeiss 21/2.8 and Zeiss 15/2.8, in addition to the 17 TS-E. And I was so happy for several weeks.

Reading the test of this new 16-35 throws everything into the boiler again ...  ::)

Waaaait a minute.  I thought buying a Zeiss Otus legally binds you to be happy with your gear and not covet new lenses, Eldar.

- A

Just a question with this lens.  Knowing landscapers will stop this lens down considerably for DOF reasons, but also recognizing that at F/16 you've lost (roughly) 20% of the resolution, is there any value in focus stacking with landscapes?  Provided you have a truly static scene (limited wind on foliage, no crashing waves, etc.), would compositing together 3, 4, 5, etc. images at a the lens's sharpest aperture yield better results?

Again: landscape newbie here.  I've seen this done in controlled/studio macro work quite a bit, but I didn't know if the idea would pay dividends in landscapes.

- A

Performance in the same ball park as the legendary Nikon 12-24.

Canon deserves some praise here!

I am formally going to call the Nikon 14-24 as the most typo'd lens in this forum.   :P

But yes, I agree.  The results are terrific.  I imagine that Mackguyver (easily this forum's most avid discussion person on this lens) probably had kittens reading this article.

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: August 02, 2014, 12:11:01 PM »
So my guess of a new FF body of ANY kind (a 6D, a 5D4, a mythical 0D Mark 12, etc.) is not happening at Photokina. 

And if the dates of the picture are correct, it seems that the cycles are slowing down. 3 years for 5D, 3.5 years for 5D2 ... so maybe 4 years for 5D3? Same with 50/60/70D or until 1DX... So 5D4 and 1DX2 will be maybe presented at Photokina...2016. :P

7D succeccor is possible - maybe an additional type (megapixel monster), but no direct replacement of "long" (lol!) waited cameras..

You are correct, Canon is slowing down at refreshing existing brands.  I presume this is due to the addition of so many new brands, like Cinema EOS, the tiny SL1, EOS-M, etc.

That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum.  Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points?  What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF?   What happened to APS-H?  What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?  What about an integrally gripped APS-C body? What about that new line of cameras with a pop-up softbox?  I want a pony!

[...and the montage fades away as the camera refocuses on the narrator...] 

The bottom line is that gear obsessives (myself included) want their swim-lane of the portfolio charts to be better supported and get the new products first.  Canon and Nikon folks are never truly happy in that regard.  But it could be worse: we could be Sony fanboys that actually do get a ton of interesting new stuff on a regular basis... but what we get may let us down. 

- A

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 62