February 01, 2015, 06:48:27 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 - RustyTheGeek

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 87
If those are your best four it makes me wonder how happy the bride is with your work. The four are average at best.

Also are you done bashing a guy that is unable to defend himself?
Were you showing your work to look better in comparison?

Complaining about some ones bad manners when you were first harmed is one thing. Fixating on it for months is just petty.

Trust me there is no hate for the videographers .  If there was hate I would be saying more hateful things.  Was I frustrated I sure was.  Am I saying my work is the best of the best, definitely not, as I said earlier I don't mind CC. Besides I don't think you want the whole album on here anyways.  The bride loved them in the end.  As for fixating on them, I'm not I figured I'd update the community on the outcome and what they think of the video and my opinion and your opinion on it.  I really don't want this thread to create drama, but as to inform other photographers and videographers about this!

Thanks again for sharing.  I think I may have misunderstood in the beginning and I admit to being lazy now and not going back and reading those first posts.  Did you say you were the principal wedding photographer for the stills at this ceremony?  I think perhaps the forum members are wondering about more traditional bridal or other images from the ceremony that you feel are representative of your best work.  Do you have a link to your online gallery or do the clients prefer you not share their images at this time?  Just wondering...

....  I asked a videographer friend of mine and he pointed out the colors in the video and exposure.
No need for a videographer to point out the horrid colors and exposure, it was plainly and painfully obvious to me and video is excluded from my skill set.
I suppose what matters is if the Bride picked up on the amateurish colors and exposure. PBD apparently did not, maybe could not.

Dude, you are a joke, remember when you couldn't spot the video CGI? When you came out with utter bullS___ like "why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI".

Don't carry the chip on your shoulder any longer, you have had half a dozen pops at me since then and you have never had anything interesting to say.

It is particularly funny because after writing this "I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them." you have taken particular pleasure in directly haranguing my personal opinion in many threads, you are like a lovelorn shunned partner, you can't seem to leave me alone, I suppose I should take your overly keen interest in me as a compliment really.

You guys should consider using the Private Message feature.   ???

If those are your best four it makes me wonder how happy the bride is with your work. The four are average at best.

Also are you done bashing a guy that is unable to defend himself?
Were you showing your work to look better in comparison?

Complaining about some ones bad manners when you were first harmed is one thing. Fixating on it for months is just petty.

I for one wondered how this turned out.  It was discussed quite a bit.  A little more info on what all the fuss was about isn't such a crime is it?  So many times things get discussed on this forum and then the discussion stops and there is never any follow up.  Everyone is left wondering how things turned out.

FWIW, the OP didn't have much of a negative opinion, he merely posted a link for whoever might be interested.  It's a public link.  And I'm sure that if the videographer joined this forum and asked for help, he would receive plenty of advice and could avoid some of these mistakes in the future.

First - It looks like everyone had a great time and the Bride & Groom looked great!  Thanks for sharing!   :D

I like the images.  Creative and original.  Fun.  Did I misunderstand?  Were these all they used from your stills??   ???

Video - Meh.  Hopefully it didn't cost much.  It looks like they got a lot of footage to work with and there are some creative shots.  But it would be my hope that it could be color corrected and reworked into something a little more polished.  I'm definitely not a videographer, I just know what I *think* I would do differently.

For instance, if nothing else was changed in the video I would want the skin tones to be more normal, not look like everyone was either high contrast, blown out or from Mars.  Wow!

Software & Accessories / Re: Photo Editing Laptop Recommendations
« on: January 13, 2015, 07:38:39 PM »
I recently purchased a Lenovo Thinkpad W540, i7-4700MQ, 16 GB RAM, 1 TB drive, with a 15.5" IPS 2880x1620 non-glare display.  Also came with a built-in xRite color sensor.  The display and sensor was a big selling point for me and it works great.

I have had issues with the Intel 7260 single-band wifi card.  Might want to try a different one.

Be careful.  Do some research first.  If it's not a Lenovo approved card, the BIOS will not allow it to work.  Your best best is to get it replaced under warranty first or switch to a different WiFi module that Lenovo sells for that laptop.

Should have mentioned this earlier, my top budget is £700, the UltranoteII is about £620 (about $1000 if my maths is right?) which I am much more comfortable with paying, I'd only go to £700 if it was a high end Macbook Pro sort of spec, which I know won't happen hence my looking to spend a bit less.

I'm intrigued by those thinkpads, and the w520. But I am VERY hesitant about preowned, even if they are refurbished. The workstation part thought for use with an external screen does sound good, my plan had been to just have them side by side and to use a proper mouse for editing work. I'll think about refurbished and get back to you. Thanks for the offer though!  :)

dhr90, you're going to have to decide how far you will compromise to stay within your budget.  You say you want to save money but then you compare what you prefer to a Macbook Pro and are not comfortable buying used.  (And IMO, Macbooks are about the most expensive and worst value/ROI there is.  I know many will disagree but I've never considered Macbooks as being that great.  Mid range at best as far as performance and usefulness, at least with regard to the hardware.  But hey, the marketing is top notch!)  I agree that buying a cheap consumer grade plastic laptop used is risky and probably would be a disappointment.  However, buying an enterprise grade Thinkpad W520 is akin to buying an L lens.  It's built like a tank and assuming it wasn't just totally beat to heck, it will be a great used system and work great for as long as you want to keep it.

Most folks don't realize that the major laptop brands have two lines.  One is retail you see in stores.  The other is business/enterprise that are only available through specific channels.  The enterprise lines are more expensive, better built and last longer.  It's not that the retail lines totally suck, they just aren't built to the same standards or consistency.  Kind of like L Lens vs EF and EF-S lenses.  These include some of the following...

Brand          Enterprise          vs       Retail
Lenovo        Thinkpad            vs      Lenovo (various models)
Toshiba       Tecra/Portege    vs      Satellite etc.
HP               Elitebook            vs      Pavillion
DELL            Latitude             vs      Inspiron

Post Processing / Re: simple before and after architecture photo
« on: January 13, 2015, 12:40:18 PM »
One thing I like about this thread is that it reinforces the fact that it's true you can't always get a nice blue sky if you want the foreground subject to be properly/adequately exposed at the same time.  Not without significant fill flash anyway.  With that in mind, I really want to see the size of the fill flash (off camera frame left) that jepabst used to get that building to look so good with a nice sky in the background!   ;)  Oh wait!  Nevermind!  LOL!

You're better off with Windows 7 (64-bit).

I just got my kid an office-grade desktop (SSD, i7, 32GB RAM) and Windows 8.1 takes a LOT of getting used to; it's frustrating because I can set up a Win7 box so an XP user can find everything in 20 minutes.

Yep.  Very true.  (Based on my exp with sooo many ex-XP users over the last couple years.)

Post Processing / Re: simple before and after architecture photo
« on: January 13, 2015, 09:50:00 AM »
As I look at this again, I'm thinking this was a blessing.  It's much easier to add punch to a correctly exposed flat image than to try and remove unwanted shadowing and blown highlights from a harsh sunlight drenched image at a bad time of day.  Am I right?  So in this case, you were able to fudge the better light/color somewhat without the drawbacks associated with bright sun.  Who knows, maybe this will be your go-to method from now on?  :D

Post Processing / Re: simple before and after architecture photo
« on: January 13, 2015, 09:25:06 AM »
Oh man, it's that jepabst guy again!    ::)   What a show off!  LOL!   :D

Kidding of course!  I always enjoy seeing your stuff.  Great job on this!  I like the result.  Sometimes you gotta work a little magic!  I don't do photoshop much (if ever) but I do use LR all the time.  Other than the sky replacement, how much work was this?  Was it as simple as doing a few global tweaks of the blacks, highlights, contrast, WB, etc or did you have to do a lot more that isn't easy to guess?

While you're at it, why not put some real work into this and photoshop a tiny copy of that image of you that your wife took on the street shooting the wedding shot?  Or that great ultrawide shot you took of the large wedding party?  I see some good spots for this on the grass at the bottom of the image.  You know, just to make it interesting!   ;D

You know, kind of an 'Easter Egg' in the pabst image to make people ask questions.  Maybe it will go viral!

Very nice images.  The site appears to have been quite a lot of work.  Great job and good luck with it!  :)

Canon General / Re: Canon Date codes gone? Why?
« on: January 13, 2015, 09:02:07 AM »
I can see this hurting resale values down the road.

Why? Lenses are valued on condition not age.

For resale value I think its irrelevant. Does anyone (serious) buy a used lens without seeing an original reciept from the seller?

Are you serious or did you forget the sarcasm tag? I have sold several lenses and never had the original receipt.

Very recently I sold an 11 year old 16-35 f2.8 that has had a 'professional' use its entire life, I paid $1,250 for it new and sold it for $900, it had the original box, caps and hood, as well as the unused soft case, all packaging and the instruction booklet. Nobody that asked about it asked for the date code, they were only interested in the condition.

As far as I can see date codes have never been anything but a hobbyists conversation piece, they served no real purpose, Canon could trace much more detailed info from the serial number if they wanted to. If any reason for omitting them was needed I would cite cost, it cost something to put it there.

Totally agree PBD.  At this point in my photography "career" I have bought and sold a lot of gear.  Everything you say is true.  Condition is paramount and having the box to pack it "like new" does help.  Like almost everything used, a receipt rarely will impact the sale.  Sure it's a nice thing to offer but having it will rarely affect the sale or the value.

And good point on the date codes.  They are discussed to death but rarely will affect the outcome of a used gear purchase.  It's not like your 11 year old lens would have sold better if it had only been 8 years old.  And I have that same 16-35 lens!  I still use it and love it.  I bought mine from a National Geographic Photographer who took it all over the world in her film days.  She sold it to me in 2010.  I never asked for or expected a receipt.  And she didn't believe in keeping boxes either.  But it's a sweet lens!   :)

Canon General / Re: Canon Date codes gone? Why?
« on: January 13, 2015, 08:53:45 AM »
Hi Rusty.
I would suggest contrary to your theory, a good resale market actually helps new sales, the second hand purchaser cannot necessarily afford to splurge for a new lens, and if I can't sell my lens for a decent price I cannot afford to purchase my new upgrade. I believe this hold true for many high value items.
Obligatory automotive comparison follows.  ;D
Take cars, without a second hand car market many manufacturers would not have made it this far, considering the problem of establishing brand loyalty with an item that is not part of a system, so no system lock in, it is considered crucial for a brand to have a good resale value, on a par with good service?

Cheers, Graham.

Excellent points Graham and I totally agree.  Well put!  Going with your thought process, with larger purchases like cars, homes and in our case, expensive camera gear, there are people who buy used and people who buy new.  The used stuff must go somewhere and without a market, the new stuff would move a lot slower.  No one is going to pile up 20 years worth of used cars in their driveway or 20 years worth of expensive used lenses in their closet!

Lenses / Re: New EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Around the Corner? [CR1]
« on: January 12, 2015, 07:30:15 PM »
So we get back to the question I think is most relevant... is this new Canon lens better than the new Tamron?  I haven't purchased the 16-300 from Tamron yet and according to Dustin's fine reviews, it sounds like I should wait a bit.  Although I still wouldn't mind gaining the extra 2mm on the wide end, FWIW.

I wasn't as impressed with Tamron's older 28-300 Full Frame lens and Dustin thinks the new one is MUCH improved so that will likely be a sure buy very soon.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 70D w/18-135 IS STM $999
« on: January 12, 2015, 07:24:06 PM »
I have been thinking of getting this camera.  I read somewhere that it has same sensor as 7d mark II and while it can't take as many rapid fire shots in a row it has the same autofocus technology (dual pixel) as the more expensive camera. Basically it is a cheap man's version of the 7d mark 2.  I know there's other differences like plastic body etc. but functionally wouldn't it operate pretty much the same  and get the same image quality as the more expensive version except for the weaker frames per second category?

FWIW, I haven't read anywhere that the 70D has the same sensor as the 7D Mk II.  In general, since I have owned and used both the 7D-2 and the 70D, I can tell you that they are completely different cameras.  And they are both excellent and well worth owning.

Don't hesitate to buy the 70D.  This is a great deal.  You'll love the 70D.  At this price, just buy it.  It has a lot of features the 7D lacks such as articulating LCD, WiFi, Remote Shooting, etc.  I was very happy with the 70D and I may get another one someday.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 87