August 01, 2014, 08:46:27 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 - notapro

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
Lighting / Re: Heat warning on 600EX-RT
« on: June 24, 2014, 01:01:49 AM »
Thanks for your reply, Mt. Spokane.  It was around two hours for each set of 500 shots, there was no air circulation in the softbox (where it would matter, yes?), and the ambient temperature was 78 F (25.5 C).  I don't know whether that many shots in four hours is fast or slow, but I'm glad the flashes are working nicely and that I need not be concerned about them.

17
Lighting / Heat warning on 600EX-RT
« on: June 24, 2014, 12:42:45 AM »
Has anyone ever observed heat warnings on 600EX-RT flash units?

I had three inside a softbox, and after some 498 shots, I got a slower recycle time and noticed that the LCD panels were glowing red.  That was unsettling.  I replaced them with three other 600EX-RTs, and after just over 500 shots, I got more red LCDs and slower recycle times.  I had the units set at 1/8 power.  Fortunately, it was time to switch to natural light.

I didn't use again any of the flashes for more than a week, and everything seems fine.  Might the life of the flash tubes have been shortened significantly in any way?  I suspect not, but I am curious nonetheless.

On a side note, the ST-ET-R3 lasts for an extraordinarily long time between battery changes.  I've replaced batteries in the flash units four or five times, while only twice in the transmitter.

18
That's a wild thing you managed there, privatebydesign.  Thank you!

I might at some point remove the first image so that only your edited one remains.

@Northstar:  There were are, thanks to the assistance of pbd.  Two eyes!

19
Heres a few.

I like especially the top photograph.  Visually interesting are your model's direct, connected expression and eye contact, as well as the way you incorporate sublty a depth of field element into your composition (with the tack-sharp hair on the right of the frame and  the more softy rendered earring on the left).

20
Head shot from March 2014.

Not sure how this will look to others.

When using the "save for web" option in Photoshop, the image looks oversaturated when viewing it on the forum page.

I saved the "regular" file (not "saved for web"), and it looks fine on the forum page.

When I click on the link to view it in an image viewer (e.g., IrfanView, Windows Photo Viewer), it looks desaturated and dull.

She looks great to me, very nice!   Only one small critique, her left eye looks like a black hole...needs to be slightly lighter.   IMHO

You're absolutely right about that eye, Northstar.  Non-photographer folks like the shot very much.  Anytime someone in photography or art views the shot, they see that black eye.  I wish I could go back in time and have her move that lock of hair!

Here is a photo where both eyes are visible.

21
Head shot from March 2014.

[Image removed, retouched image by privatebydesign appears later in the thread.]

Not sure how this will look to others.

When using the "save for web" option in Photoshop, the image looks oversaturated when viewing it on the forum page.

I saved the "regular" file (not "saved for web"), and it looks fine on the forum page.

When I click on the link to view it in an image viewer (e.g., IrfanView, Windows Photo Viewer), it looks desaturated and dull.

22
Abstract / Re: Textures...
« on: June 22, 2014, 07:12:54 PM »
Here's a bit of hair.

23
That's too bad about the Rogue universal gels, pbd.  I guess I've been lucky.  I may purchase those Rosco samples.  As for the posterization, you are right about the jpg compression.  I don't know how many times that photo has been resaved, but in the beginning, even at near maximum quality, the jpg was not as good as a TIFF or, of course, the RAW file (because of the posterization).  It was saved again (sRGB/for web) to upload for my post.  I'd like to recreate that egg shot (used four lights; two to color the back wall red, one on either side of the egg, at different heights--used the 100mm f/2.8L Macro).

24
I share privatebydesign's observations on the factory gel holder for the 600EX-RT.

I have circular Rogue gels, as well as the "universal" set.  They have served me well and are easy to use.  In the attached photo, I used the "universal" filters to color a beige wall red.  The circular banding (I don't know whether that is the appropriate term) in the red is not (was not) visible in the originial RAW file (which I no longer have).

25
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: June 15, 2014, 09:44:21 PM »
Sometimes it's nice to have photos that you can "sink your teeth into", so to speak  :P

26
[ . . . and I'll probably get X-RITE ColorMunki Display and passport for proper colors and white balance [ . . . . ]


Perio,

You might consider also, for around $50 more (e.g., at B&H), the X-Rite i1Display Pro.  See this link for more information:

http://blog.xritephoto.com/2012/11/colormunki-display-or-i1display-pro/


27
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 10, 2014, 09:24:51 PM »
My first was the 50mm f/1.2.

28
Lighting / Re: How to tell when Eneloops are running dry in 600EXs?
« on: April 18, 2014, 02:17:41 PM »
I am with Jim Saunders in thinking it would be useful if a low-battery status (especially that of whatever flash unit in a group would be going first) were relayed to the master display.

To decide when to do a battery change, I go by the second misfire.  With a first misfire, I find myself being (hopelessly) optimistic, attributing the misfire to something (anything) other than low batteries.  If I'm in error, the second misfire comes soon enough.

29
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Calumet U.S. Bites the Dust
« on: March 13, 2014, 07:45:04 PM »
Disappointing news here.   It was a great place to go when I didn't want to wait on shipments from Adorama or B&H.

30
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:02:20 AM »
Pedroesteban mentions a cardinal point in this thread.  It is helpful to note that photography and art are not synonymous any more than painting and art are synonymous.  Painting and photography are among the media from which artists may choose to create their work, and painters and photographers as painters and photographers are not the same necessarily as artists whose media are painting and photography.

I think distant.star (if I have the name correct) posted a relevant point early in this thread about having a an M.F.A. and a camera as opposed to having a camera without the degree.  In the former instance, one could self-identify as an artist.  In the latter, self-identification would be "just" as a photographer.

I would love to expand more, though some of what I might write would derive from and be rooted in what I wrote here in a thread a while back:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15734.msg288202#msg288202

I will add that, whether "just a photographer" (i.e., a self-identified non-artist) finds merit-technical or otherwise--in a photograph, whether "just a photographer" finds value in a photograph, or whether the same person derives pleasure from a photograph are not, per se, necessary, essential, or sufficient to the matter of status, classification, or appreciation (for example) of a photograph as an artwork.

My post here is severely limited (I need to get out of here and go to work!), but in conjuntion with the matter presented in the cited thread, it may be understandable why photographs as artworks may evoke incredulous reactions from members of the general public or society at large.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6