December 18, 2014, 06:18:11 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 - RustyTheGeek

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 80
76
Lenses / Re: Lens Fungus - Advice Needed
« on: December 03, 2014, 10:03:47 AM »
...the sealing has a great impact on how quickly outdoor humidity gets inside the lens.

By definition, 'humidity' is the amount of water in a gaseous state dissolved in the air.  Individual molecules of H2O floating around, and those water molecules are smaller than the molecules of nitrogen gas that compose most of the air.  So, unless the sealing is capable of keeping air from moving in and out of the lens (it's not!), that sealing will have no effect on humidity entering the lens.

+1 - Agree!  Well put.  Even the spores can't be kept out unless filters are used that are fine enough.  I don't think lenses have HEPA filters.   :)  Simply storing the lenses in a container that is a few degrees warmer than the surrounding air will reduce the humidity.  It's not much more complicated than that.  That's what is done in gun safes to prevent rust.  In most areas of the country and air conditioned spaces, things are good without any extra effort.  But if you are in a humid area, extra measures may be necc.

77
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 03, 2014, 09:26:10 AM »
LUTs are only part of the profile process.  Color Profiles are not LUTs but simple rely on LUTs to function.  To explain the whole process can get a bit complicated.  Suffice to say that there are both graphics and video versions of color profiles.  Graphics color profiles have the goal of synchronizing what you see on the display with what you see on printed output.  Color profiles exist for everything in the chain, monitor (display), graphics card, OS, software and printer driver.  And don't forget the color profiles in the camera.  Some of the profiles are fixed, others can be tuned.  Fine tuning can be achieved using a color profile sensor device as mentioned previously.  If one is serious about the accuracy of the print, a larger investment can be made to create custom printer profiles using a spectrophotometer to test the colors of the printed output.  It's a different device than the one you use on the monitor because monitors are backlit illuminated transmissive panels where paper is a reflective color source.

With printed output, many things influence the color, most of them are after the computer.  Printer hardware, ink formulation and type, paper color and type and the color of the light in the viewing area.

Those who work in the commercial graphic arts, esp those who are involved in printing can probably comment on this far better than I can.  I haven't done it for a long time and the technology is much better now.  But color matching has been a major challenge and goal for decades even before computers.

Here are some links for general info/explanations of the computer part of it...

http://www.optirep.net/lut-profile/
http://www.dpbestflow.org/color/color-management-overview#cmyk
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/How_To_Get_My_Monitor_To_Match_My_Printer

If you go down the road of color matching, you are in for a wild ride.  Personally, unless the printing is going to make or break you, I would settle for simply calibrating your monitors and leave it at that.

Also, how do you have you monitors situated in the room?  It's important that any light sources like windows are in front, not behind you.  Light reflections create irritating glare and reflections on the screen not to mention washing out colors.  (This is why I hate glossy screens.  Most true serious graphics monitors are matte, not glossy, to reduce glare and reflections.)  Make sure your editing area is not too bright and you aren't fighting light bouncing off your monitor in your eyes.  Also, keep the monitor at the correct height to prevent neck and back strain.

78
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 03, 2014, 12:58:51 AM »

I am using an Inateck KT4004 PCIE USB3 card for my 2010 5,1 Mac Pro and it works beautifully with not too many hassles. Only thing is it ejects if the computer goes to sleep, which I don't let mine do anyways.

Here's the link if you want to breathe new life into you Mac Pro: http://www.inateck.com/inateck-kt4004-4-port-usb-3-0-pci-e-express-card-without-power-connection/
Thanks for the link. Maybe I'll give that a try. USB 3.0 would be a nice upgrade. Firewire gear is getting scarce.

It has been my experience for several years that USB 3.0 can be very strange and buggy.  Rarely before USB 3.0 have I seen the astounding number of firmware updates for a USB controller chipset or the number of driver revisions released.  It's mind boggling!  When USB 3.0 works, it's fast and nice.  When it doesn't, it's horrid.

My point is that if you have problems (PC or Mac) with a USB 3 expansion card, try a another one with a different chipset.  Read the reviews before you buy it to start with.  Make sure the firmware and drivers are fully up to date from the expansion card vendor but also the chipset maker.  Some vendors are pretty far behind on their driver updates.  Good luck!   :)

79
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 03, 2014, 12:42:16 AM »
c.d.embrey, I think we are splitting hairs.  My point is that whatever you want to call them, creatives, retail photographers, professional retouchers, art students, CanonRumors Members, et al. use systems running Windows more than Apple supporters typically seem to admit.  The old conventional wisdom that you have to have a Mac to do serious art or graphics work started to fade several years ago when Apple started using Intel CPUs and Chipsets and Windows released Windows 7 x64.  Since then, the operating system that hosts creative software like Photoshop, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, etc. is irrelevant because both OS's are solid and reliable and the creative software works the same regardless of the computer it is running on.

Creatives use software to edit images, not operating systems.  So the OS and the shiny box the software runs on is merely a personal preference.  And it's great that we have so many folks out there that are proficient with editing images to look so good while having a choice of systems to run it on.  Choice is good!

As I said before, poor reading comprehension is a BIG problem on the 'net. NO WHERE have I said that Macs are better. I've just told you about my experience in SoCal dealing with professional retouchers in my small part of the commercial photo business. And, sorry to say, NONE use Windows. This is just a fact of life, and there is nothing I can do force them switch to RustyTheGeek's favorite OS :)

I have no dog in this fight, I do NO retouching and own NO Adobe products. If my freelance professional retoucher were to switch to a Windows box, and Abandon All Abobe Products. I'd still use her. But I won't lie and tell you see has switched to Windows, when she hasn't.

BTW if I were King of the World, Lunux would be the only legal operating system ;) But I'm NOT King of the World, so fell free to use whatever OS makes you happy :)

Mr. Embry, I gotta say, you're cracking me up.   :D  I agree, everyone must be on the lookout for poor reading comprehension.  Please do me a favor and scan my posts to see where it is that I may have mentioned that you were a Mac supporter or that you should lie about anyone using Macs switching to Windows.

This thread's intent is to help advise someone on what kind of system to use for Photo editing.  All I've said is that it doesn't matter which host OS is used anymore for graphics work.  I'm not trying to force anyone to use a favorite OS.  Folks just need to be aware that an expensive Mac isn't required to have a capable computer to do graphics and art type work.  At one time this was the case but for quite a while now the field has been pretty equal.  Many creative types still use and prefer Macs.  If a Mac is the user's preference, that's great!  But again, I'll say that regardless of what system the OP chooses, the software they run on it will likely be the same.

And if the OP already has experience with Macs or already owns software for a Mac, the Mac should probably be a strong contender for the upgrade.

If you don't mind me asking, if you don't own Adobe products or do any photo editing... why are we having this discussion about poor reading comprehension discussing that very subject?

80
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 02, 2014, 05:48:37 PM »
c.d.embrey, I think we are splitting hairs.  My point is that whatever you want to call them, creatives, retail photographers, professional retouchers, art students, CanonRumors Members, et al. use systems running Windows more than Apple supporters typically seem to admit.  The old conventional wisdom that you have to have a Mac to do serious art or graphics work started to fade several years ago when Apple started using Intel CPUs and Chipsets and Windows released Windows 7 x64.  Since then, the operating system that hosts creative software like Photoshop, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, etc. is irrelevant because both OS's are solid and reliable and the creative software works the same regardless of the computer it is running on.

Creatives use software to edit images, not operating systems.  So the OS and the shiny box the software runs on is merely a personal preference.  And it's great that we have so many folks out there that are proficient with editing images to look so good while having a choice of systems to run it on.  Choice is good!

81
PowerShot / Re: Canon g7x and iPad Air
« on: December 02, 2014, 04:06:20 PM »
According to most of the Apple fans I hear from, Apple products just work.  They never have problems like this.  And if a problem does happen to occur, Apple will support them.

When I owned a Mac and an iPhone and needed support, Apple routinely didn't think there was a problem.  If I asked around, the response was usually, "Why would you want to do that?"  I had to hunt and hunt and hopefully get lucky and find the answer myself in various forums on the net.  Because the problem doesn't exist until Apple finally decides it does.

Have you tried calling the Apple store and talking to a "genius"?

My guess is that you are running into the same problem we all run into (regardless of maker)... support for the RAW file type you are trying to work with will require an update before it works as it should.  Good luck!   ;)


82
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 02, 2014, 02:12:18 PM »
    I'm sure the Mac vs PC debate is much like the Canon vs Nikon argument ie a matter of personal choice. I prefer PCs for the same reason I have an Android phone - easier to customise to your own liking. I do think Macs seem rather over-priced compared to their PC equivalents though?

    As to OS, surely no reason not to go with Windows 7  & skip 8 if you want - Windows 10 is due out next year I believe.

    A couple of questions I'm interested in too as I'm looking to upgrade my PC soon:



    • Is 32GB of RAM always going to be enough, as some motherboards have  'only' 4 slots (so 'only' 32GB capacity)


      If you have two monitors & want to calibrate both, is it necessary to have two separate graphics cards?


Android vs Apple phones is a good analogy except the difference is even more pronounced because of the ecosystems.  Android is open.  Apple is closed, tightly controlled and intentionally limited by Apple to protect their revenue coming from both high margin hardware (iPhones, iPads) and forced App Store or iTunes Store purchasing.

The amount of RAM in a system, Mac or PC, is controlled/limited by the chipset technology.  It used to be limited by the 32 bit OS but that's no longer an issue.  Now it's simply the design of the chipset.  For instance, Server chipsets and motherboards can have 16 RAM slots or more to support more total RAM.

As for graphics cards and displays, yes you can have multiple displays attached to one video card with no problems.  The calibration would be per display because the calibration is display driven from a physical calibration sensor attached to the panel with the calibration software using the sensor input to tune the graphics card to make the adjustments digitally.


83
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 02, 2014, 02:00:56 PM »
I'd expect the noise levels to be unacceptable with 500 µs lag time.  You'd be shooting with faster than a 1/2000th second shutter speed.

Since when is a 1/2000th shutter speed out of the norm?  Esp on a bright sunny day?  Last I checked, I think most DSLRs shoot at up to 1/8000th or faster.  And wasn't insanely fast shutter speeds (1/32000th mentioned above) supposed to be one of the advantages of mirrorless that 'mirror slappers' can't match?


I shoot as high as 1/4000th of a second in good light with my Canon DSLRs all the time. Noise can become a problem with an EVF in any circumstance when light is low...but that would be one of those "worst case" scenarios where I'd want at least 60fps...I could really care less about how fast the maximum is.


To be fair, "noise" can even be a problem with our biological vision. In very low light, our eyes are just as starved for photons as a sensor. Our brains compensate, but, here is a simple test. Early in the morning, when twilight just starts to get bright enough to see by...look for the noise in your own vision. :P You might be surprised, once you finally notice it, how "bad" it is. :D The brain generally compensates, and with an EVF we could compensate as well with realtime NR (I bet a realtime TGV denoising algorithm would do wonders), but...it doesn't really matter what your working with, transistors or nerves, photodiodes or rods and cones, photon shot noise is photon shot noise. ;)

The Terminator could see everything.   He said so himself!!  ;D

84
This question reminds me of instances where people would run print ads in the classifieds that said nothing more than "Send your $1.00 to..." with a PO Box.  You can't imagine how many people sent a $1 to the address!!  There was nothing promised in return, it was literally just an ad to see how many dollars would be collected.

Nothing illegal about asking for money.  Panhandlers do it all the time.

At least the Ken Rockwells and Clarkvisions are putting forth some effort and expense to provide resources and entertainment for you to view and enjoy.  And if you look at many of the photo review sites like Bryan Carnathan's the-digital-picture.com, you'll find similar requests for support, sometimes in the form of clicking on retail links, etc.  These guys are putting forth some real effort and work to earn that money IMHO.

Canonrumors.com also works to get some revenue with ads, etc.  Websites aren't free!!

85
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 02, 2014, 01:38:41 PM »
I'd expect the noise levels to be unacceptable with 500 µs lag time.  You'd be shooting with faster than a 1/2000th second shutter speed.

Since when is a 1/2000th shutter speed out of the norm?  Esp on a bright sunny day?  Last I checked, I think most DSLRs shoot at up to 1/8000th or faster.  And wasn't insanely fast shutter speeds (1/32000th mentioned above) supposed to be one of the advantages of mirrorless that 'mirror slappers' can't match?

86
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 02, 2014, 01:34:15 PM »
msm, I am having a hard time understanding your point.  I think jrista's point is that if he can see/detect/perceive or otherwise interpret a lag, a stutter or any kind of EVF image that isn't as good as an OVF image, it is distracting and less than ideal.  Take away all the talk about mSecs, uSecs, etc and the point still remains that EVF technology still needs improvement.  It doesn't matter about a person's reaction time.  What matters is what the eye can see and perceive.  And that is fundamentally what photography is all about.

Bottom Line:  Until EVF performance matches OVF performance, EVFs will be a barrier to entry for mirrorless cameras.

87
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 02, 2014, 01:26:50 PM »
Most professional retouchers (people who do nothing but retouching for a living) use Apple Macs of one sort or another. The freelance retoucher/digital artist I use has an iMac. Another one I know, who works for a commercial photographer, uses a Mac Pro. Eizo monitors are common, but the freelancer I use works with the iMac's built-in, and I've never had a client or magazine complain.

Lloyd Chambers is a little over-the-top, but you may find his Mac Performance Guide useful http://macperformanceguide.com/

Sorry c.d.embrey, but your statement above is analogous to saying that a carpenter does better work because he drives a Ford truck instead of a Chevy.  Or an import Toyota instead of a domestic Chrysler.  Or uses Makita power tools instead of Milwaukee.  I could go on and on...

The hardware is identicalThe software is identicalThe only difference is the Operating System and User Interface.  (And the limits or advantages each imposes.)  It doesn't make any difference which platform one chooses or uses.  The output is based on the user, not the computer.

I've said over and over about Macs vs PC ->  It doesn't matter  <-.  They both have their benefits and they both suffer from similar problems.  If a user loves one over the other, then they will use what they love.

"Professionals" use what they know, their employees know and what makes them money.  The very successful pro studio here in town where I live uses PCs for their editing and selling and no one knows the difference or cares as long as their $2000+ photo packages are beautiful and ready on time.

88
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 02, 2014, 11:48:29 AM »
...
Sure, no problem!.......
Thank you Rusty, M.2 is now on my list of things to do after moving. Sounds like two will be in order.
  ;)

Two?  Two M.2 drives?  Only way to use two would be to either have two PCs with motherboards in each one that support it or have one on the motherboard and install a PCIe card to support the 2nd one.  Personally, I installed a 256GB M.2 and I use spinning platter HDs, each volume in a RAID 1 array hosted by the Intel RAID on the motherboard for everything else.
Two? If I Googled well, it appears M.2 and PCie are essentially the same throughput, different connections?
Do I have the slots?
http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/Z87PRO/

I don't see an M.2 slot on that board nor do I see M.2 support in the feature list.  But that's a fine board.  You would just need to use a PCIe expansion board.  The x1 slot is sufficient.

89
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 02, 2014, 11:22:37 AM »
...
Sure, no problem!.......
Thank you Rusty, M.2 is now on my list of things to do after moving. Sounds like two will be in order.
  ;)

Two?  Two M.2 drives?  Only way to use two would be to either have two PCs with motherboards in each one that support it or have one on the motherboard and install a PCIe card to support the 2nd one.  Personally, I installed a 256GB M.2 and I use spinning platter HDs, each volume in a RAID 1 array hosted by the Intel RAID on the motherboard for everything else.

90
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 02, 2014, 11:13:11 AM »
I have often wondered why DSLRs don't do sort of a compromise mirror function where during high fps mode (think 7D Mark II 10 fps) the camera doesn't just lock the mirror up for the second or two it takes to fire off 10-20 frames and then drop the mirror back down.  Seems silly to slap the mirror up and down 10 times a second when the viewfinder is less useful.  But I also get it and understand that a good photographer by habit can see and notice things as the viewfinder "refreshes" even though it's only a fraction of a second between frames.


Because losing a whole second or more of viewfinder time means your very likely to misframe your subject or even clip part of it out of the frame when tracking something moving. You would be surprised at how much we can see change in a fraction of a second.


That's the same reason the real-time view of an OPTICAL viewfinder is so desirable...you really FEEL the lag in an EVF when tracking a subject with continuous shooting. Until the lag time gets into the microseconds range, I personally don't think I could use an EVF for action shooting. It's one of the big things I'm curious about regarding the NX1. They claim 5ms lag, which is low...but, it's not real time, and I wonder how much I'll be able to "feel" that lag.

Totally agree jrista, just like I typically agree with almost all of your posts.  I guess I'm a fan, LOL!  Note that I did mention being able to still see what's going on during the fps action of the mirror.  However, for those times when silence is top priority, it would be nice to have this in an easier way to implement than LiveView.

I think the mirrorless design, in some form, will eventually become a standard in the industry.  And until Canon or Nikon do it in a big way, it will continue to be a niche market.  The pros won't waste time with small little wanna-be systems that can't match the full ecosystem that Canon and Nikon have offered for decades.

But the little niche systems will pave the way so to speak and flesh out the bigger obstacles and failures.  I think this is what Canon and Nikon are waiting for.


Yeah, the niche systems are the guinea pig systems. :P Hopefully they will figure out the best way to solve these problems, and the big players will copy them.


There was talk about some kind of Hybrid EVF/OVF from Canon earlier in the year. Nothing ever seemed to come from that, unless Canon is calling the Transmissive-LCD updates in the 7D II to be a "hybrid EVF" (which would be a joke.) I really want to see some kind of convertible viewfinder. There are certainly uses for an EVF, such as the need for a silent shutter without the mirror slap sound, video recording, etc. There are also uses for an OVF, such as the action photography where lag can be extremely annoying at the very least, and image-killing at worse (the A7r I rented periodically seemed to build up major lag and stutter...I could never figure out why, but sometimes the frame rate would drop into the low teens, and the lag would jump to a second or so.)


EVFs have to perform exquisitely, with say 500µs lag and no stutter ever, (and be ultra high resolution and high DR, like 8000ppi) before I would consider them as a truly viable replacement for an OVF during action shooting.

Totally agree jrista.  At some point, when does the cost of the EVF (and/or EVF/OVF) system start to cost more than the sensor itself?  Because the challenge is significant and as you say, the performance must be perfect and impressive to pull off replacing a good OVF.  In a crude way, the EVF is sort of a sensor in reverse and while the resolution doesn't need to match by any means, the performance, accuracy, sharpness and overall IQ + performance must go far beyond what we are currently seeing.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 80