April 18, 2014, 07:05:58 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 - notapro

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: December 03, 2013, 12:26:52 AM »
Four other monitors to consider in early December 2013:

30-inch--NEC PA302W BK SV          $2639.95

27-inch--NEC PA272W BK SV          $1544.50

27-inch--EIZO Color Edge CG276    $2564.00

27-inch--ASUS PA279Q                    $849.00

Paramount in these monitors is color fidelity.

I have had positive experience with Rogue flash gels.


The "gel band" is easy to use and manage.  Seems to be a viable option for flash units, Canon or otherwise.

Lighting / Re: Rogue Flashbender
« on: August 11, 2013, 12:37:31 AM »
I've used one for those moments when a subject is harshly backlit, yet insists on having a shot taken anyway.

The example I have in mind is outdoors in broad daylight, with the subject standing in full shade.  Either the background will be tremendously blown out by exposing for the face, or the face will be unacceptably dark if exposing for the background.  Such a condition is manageable, but when the subject demands the shot anyway, the flashbender can help with fill flash.  Instead a "direct fill flash look" to the image, the flashbender serves as a nice bounce surface, softening--so to speak--the light on the subject.  Though the direction of the light is undeniably from straight on, the result is less undesirable than using flash aimed directly at the subject.

The large flashbender can be used as a snoot, and that capacity may add to the usefulness of the Rogue product for you.  I have not used the diffuser.

Thanks to polarhannes and to privatebydesign for suggesting browser-related aspects to my problem.  All is well with Firefox and IE, though my problem remained.

I deleted the new monitor calibration, profile, and driver.  I then reinstalled everything, and now my issue is resolved.  Still, were it not for this thread, my Internet browsers would not have been checked and configured for proper color management.

Many thanks to all of you who replied.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: July 26, 2013, 09:27:45 PM »
Times are hard when you have to turn to cicadas as models.  On the plus side, they don't charge for their time and you don't need a signed model release form.

Both photos were shot hand-held in available light (no flash) at high ISO (1600 for the full body portrait, 3200 for the head shot).

Thanks for the notes on using sRGB.  I figured as much, and I believe I have Photoshop configured correctly to save things in sRGB.

I just uploaded an image that was saved in sRGB space in the past (before the monitor change), but it, too, came out looking less saturated.

I am inclined to think that the browsers (Firefox, IE) could be at fault here, but uploaded images are getting desaturated (only?) when uploaded to this site.  They look fine as e-mail attachments and when viewing within e-mail.

I appreciate all the thoughts so far and will continue to look into my problem.  I will even change back to the old monitor to see if things get "fixed" that way.

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.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Bag suggestions?
« on: July 07, 2013, 02:25:38 PM »
I share alexanderferdinand's recommendation of the Think Tank Streetwalker HardDrive backpack.  If you want or need more room, try the Think Tank Airport Accelerator backpack.  I use the Streetwalker bag for my flashes and flash-related gear, and the Airport Accelerator for my cameras and lenses.

Here is a link to the Airport Accelerator:


Canon General / Re: Clarification....Fine Art
« on: July 07, 2013, 02:50:57 AM »
You ask an interesting question, Heavyweight67.  To this point, several persons have touched upon matters relevant to answering your question, and I would like to complement what they have written.  As the question you pose may appear deceptively simple, so may appear what I write below (as might what others have written above and may write after my post), but let there be no doubt that we could spend a lifetime discussing this matter.

A “question behind your question” is “What is art?”  Photography is one form, genre, or medium of art, and forms, genres, media, etc. *per se* are not substantive to the question of whether something is art, as the status of a work as art is not determined by the work being (for example) a painting, a sculpture, a dance, something written, or a photograph.  Put another way, something can be a dance without it being art, something can written without it being art, and something can be a photograph without it being art.

Above this post, Canon Rumors members unfocused, yogi, and distant.star address elements of the “artworld” (with this term, I make reference to Arthur Danto).  In response to your question, unfocused writes, ". . . anything that art critics, curators, collectors and gallery owners say is art".  Distant.star makes reference to M.F.A.-created work v. non-M.F.A.-created work.  Yogi appears to recognize the role of a photographer’s (i.e., artist’s) intention to create a photograph as art and not “just” as a photograph, and he also recognizes with what he writes the notion of art as a social construction.  CharlieB incorporates thoughtful humor into the thread with his proposition that we ". . . abbreviate fine art as fart, as in artsy-fartsy".

Cogent in this thread is that context and status are crucial to the status of a work as art.  If one self-presents as an artist, creates intentionally a work as an artwork to have it displayed or appreciated in an appropriate context (e.g., a gallery, museum, exhibition, concert hall, theater, or other like setting), then one’s creation is art within relevant and appropriate contexts.  It is right to  remember, additionally, that this “definition” of art does not speak to the matter of whether an artwork is “good/bad”, “useful/useless”, “emotive/non-emotive”, “valuable/valueless”, “practical/impractical”, and so forth.  What this conception of art does speak to is the matter of the artworld as an “institution” and how the interplay of socio-historical context, status, and aesthetic theory (to name only three factors) are inextricably connected with what is art, who is an artist, and how/why works might be perceived as art (reference here is to George Dickie).

Content *per se*, then–like genre or medium–is neither necessary nor sufficient to the classification of a work  (e.g., a photograph) as art (reference here to aesthetician Susanne Langer).  Furthermore, while art may not be “concrete” in the sense that physics or chemistry can be, it does not follow that it is “only” or “purely” subjective.  Art norms do exist, after all, and like many norms, they vary socio-historically .  For art, then, one cannot conclude rightly or assume “pure subjectivity” due to an absense of universally applicable standards or norms.

Much (or all) of what everyone has contributed to this thread so far touches upon this artsy-fartsy post of mine, and I hope that we all have been (and will be) helpful in responding to your question.

The problem seems to have resolved itself now, as inexplicably as it "appeared".

Maybe it was the phase of the moon, the weather, maybe this problem is intermittent, . . . who knows.

Just posting here to say that all's well again.

In response to JR, yes, the same AF mode is used, though I have more information now.

With the 24mm and 50mm lenses attached and in complete darkness (or with lens caps attached), the T3i lens drive will continue to function every time I press the shutter.

On the 5D Mark III with the 24mm lens, the lens drive will continue to function as well in complete darkness or with the lens cap attached.

With these two cameras and these two lenses, then, it is only the 5D and 50mm combination that'll get the AF lens drive to stop.  I'll press the shutter release button with no effect, as if the camera is turned off.  I would guess that this matter is related to the specific camera-lens combination and does not likely indicate any sort of "fix" or resolution is necessary.  Who can say . . .

Just a follow-up here.

What I describe happens so far may be the case for only the 50L and 5DIII, as the same lens on a T3i has the camera attempting continously to AF even in almost complete darkness.


I checked the settings, and for "tab AF-4", the selection is "ON".

What you say is exactly what I experience: the camera does not even attempt to focus.


However, with the 24mm f/1.4L II, I seem to be unable to replicate the "issue".

I'm shooting into an almost completely dark closet, ISO 100, f/1.4, 1/60 in order to get the AF to stop working (for diagnostic purposes/to see if I can replicate the issue).

In actual/normal use, I came across this problem when shooting an evening shot (with the 50L).  The lens drive just stopped.  It had never happened before, so I got curious about it.  I switch to MF when necessary, but had never come across the sudden "hang" of the AF lens drive.

I have a question regarding my 5D Mark III.

When focusing in very low light conditions, the AF will suddenly cease functioning, as if the camera were MF only.

What brings back AF is pointing the camera to a light source.  The AF springs right into action.  Still, after coming back, if focus isn't achieved farily quickly, AF will "hang" again.

Is is expected or normal for AF to stop functioning in extremely low light?

If it makes any difference, what I describe happens with the 50mm f/1.2L lens.  I have not yet checked this out with other lenses.

Is the CF formatting after the firmware update really necessary, or removing the firmware file is enough?

Wondering about the same thing.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4