December 20, 2014, 05:38:44 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 103
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Lighting setup for studio portraits
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:25:03 AM »
I find that a single 600EX struggles in a double-diffused modifier >600 in2.  They're fine in a 24" softbox, 48x12" stripbox, or 30" octabox.  I often use a single monolight (PCB Einstein) in a large modifier like a 4' octa as key, with 600's in softboxes as fill or kicker, or just with a Honl Speed Grid as a hair/rim light.  I started with PocketWizard triggers, but I've found that using an ST-E3 on camera to trigger the 600's and the optical slave capability of the monolight is quite reliable.

Thanks for the precise information, Neuro. The Wafer is 30" by 40", so the 600 will definitely not be sufficient...
I don't have the budget for an Einstein at the moment, though, and the used ones aren't that much cheaper. So maybe the Alienbee 400 is my best option...

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Lighting setup for studio portraits
« on: December 16, 2014, 11:55:01 PM »
I have three 600EX-RTs, and I recently received a Wafer 100 softbox for free from a very generous CR member. He included a Speedotron adapter. Now I am trying to decide whether I should get a Speedlite adapter (Bower + L bracket thingy) and use one Speedlite in it, or should I either get a Speedotron or get a Alienbee 800 and the corresponding adapter? If I should get a monolight then what are the pros and cons of getting a Speedotron? I see a bunch of them for <$ 300 on eBay- are these good deals?
The primary use will be as a key light for portraits, but I am not sure if one 600 will be strong enough to pass through the diffuser and provide a good key. I am loathe to gang up 600s because that reduces my flexibility to use a secondary light, hair light etc.
Any advice?
Thanks in advance!

Lenses / Re: DANGIT! I rented the 85 1.2ii
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:45:20 PM »
It will melt 85mm f1.8 and 135L in second.

Your next best is 200mm f2 IS

I disagree that the bokeh you posted cannot be achieved with a 135L. You should try a comparison with yours :)
What the 85L can do is achieve that with a much wider field of view

EOS Bodies / Re: Noise - maybe it's good?
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:19:03 PM »
oof, thats a horrible picture.
You are nice! You want to be sincere but still nice to him.

OP; let's make a deal: if you want me to critique what you say then please read further,

But if you cannot take critique then please stop right now.I won't be nice.

Most likely you heard when they said that the first step in healing process is for the patient to realize that he is sick.
In order of importance, in portrait I value light, focus, expression, background and noise.
For sport and macro that would be different.

If you have heard someone saying that photography is about lighting, believe me he was not lying.
When I assess a portrait, that is the first thing I look at.
Your photo has the ugliest lighting ever.
Because of bad light, you should acquire courage and ask your subject to move to somewhere else, with a better light or where you can modify existing light (quantity, quality and direction).
In worst case scenario, you would pose him in such a way that lighting is the most flattering possible. In shooting concert for example, you wait for the expression as well as the right direction of light.
Dude, you could have asked him to chin up a bit so that the eyes were lit, or better yet use off-camera or bounce flash. Don't be shy. You are a photographer.
Your lighting technique sucks - available lighting !!!!

What is your focusing point? The nose? You shoot at f 1.4 that is shallow, you better be precise.

Expression is great. Not sure if that is your doing or just the subject was great. If it is yours then continue - good stuff, otherwise work on it hard.

Background: you suck again. You could have waited until that thing in green was gone. He is walking. Or simply, ask nicely for him to move.

Noise; you are at 35mm focal length, the subject is not moving, and yet you are at 1/200s - Justify it with non-importance of noise but I won't hear you. To me, that is just a lack of technique.

Maybe the subject likes this photo, but in my eyes, this is a total failure in all plans of my photography.
I wouldn't be surprised if your future bride sues you with this quality of photo.

As I said, the first step is in realizing that you are sick. Noise has no right to be good. It is not for nothing that everybody tries to shoot at ISO 100 whether they are from Camera Rumors or not. Creativity comes later.

I hope, you are not angry.
I am telling you what I see.
If you said, it is a good photo, I wouldn't argue. It is a matter of taste.
It is really ok to take good photos. I do that most of the time (if not almost).
But qualifying this as one of your favorites was too much for me; giving yourself the right to criticize people who do all to reduce noise in their photos just added salt to the wound.

Besisika might be strong in his comments but I would be grateful for an in-depth analysis if I was the photographer.
I agree with the content, of course.
This is a snapshot that could easily be taken with an iPhone with the same or similar results (which is good but not great). Your tools and your skills allow it to be transformed to a great shot. And Besisika described the how of it.
I saw a photo a few days ago of a friend and her daughter on Facebook. I was a great moment of bonding captured on camera, but the image was badly out of focus and noisy (taken with a D3200). It received hundreds of likes. However, an experienced photographer should have been able to transform this to something stellar. If you already have great content (subject) it is your privilege and responsibility as a photographer to record it the best way possible. Allowing noise to be there is one of the factors that is detrimental to that, as is sharpness. It isn't enough of a factor to make a great image into garbage, but if it can prevent the image from realizing its fullest potential, that should be avoided.
And I was actually serious about that Sigma front focusing :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Noise - maybe it's good?
« on: December 16, 2014, 02:26:55 AM »
I don't mind the noise, but is that Sigma front focusing?

Canon General / Re: Sensor life
« on: December 15, 2014, 12:39:40 AM »
In my lab, there are CCD cameras that have been kept on day and night for the last six years, with no visible deterioration in IQ (admittedly, they aren't HD SLRs). The light is pretty dim though...
BTW, in case anyone is curious, the brand is Sony ;)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: FYI: D750 light leak issues
« on: December 14, 2014, 05:41:55 PM »
QC is dying...

Third Party Manufacturers / FYI: D750 light leak issues
« on: December 14, 2014, 01:01:05 PM »
I suppose this happens to all manufacturers nowadays.
(to summarize, there is a light leak when shooting into backlit scenes using live view)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: December 13, 2014, 02:05:29 AM »
Excellent review Dustin. The only downside (for my bank account) is I now know which 85mm to add to my lens collection ;)

Manual focus doesn't bother me as I spent the first 30 years of photography with manual lenses (FD series). And the focus confirmation in the current series of cameras makes it much easier.

Your point about focus confirmation is true.  Live View also helps when you have a chance to be a little more deliberate.  I've not used any of the better screens for manual focusing, but other have reported that those help, too.  My experience is that my keeper rate with manual focus lenses is actually very high; I just take more time at acquisition.

Do you mean you are using the standard 'Brite Screen' in the 6D with the 85 Otus ? If so I'm  surprised you're able to get focus at f1.4 with this lens because of that screen showing a dof of about f3.2, unless you are referring to live view, but it doesn't sound as if you are.

Is the sensitivity of the focus confirmation system related to the type of screen used (which I thought only affected the subjective perception of depth of focus)?
If not, Dustin Abbott can use focus confirmation reliably at f/1.4 even when his eyes cannot be trusted.

This article hits uncomfortably close to home. In complete confidence of course, I can probably be persuaded to admit that I am seriously considering buying my next white lens on a 'buy now pay later' scheme - although I never go into debt for anything - ever. Photography has corrupted me...

Well, to be fair, white lenses can qualify as investments. I haven't seen one that's value has undergone depreciation. May I ask who is this worthy contender?
The worth contender (?!) is the 100-400mkII. I really can't afford another purchase so soon after my 7DmkII but my longest lens at the moment is the 70-300L which is a lovely lens but Canon saw fit to charge extra for the tripod foot - and it's not compatible with Canon extenders. The 100-400 looks like it'll be everything I pine for - optical quality at least as good as the 70-300, greater reach naked and it can snuggle with an extender - and it has a cool tripod foot too! If ever there was a purchase that warranted buying on credit, surely this is it???!

Yeah, the 100-400 II is all I want from a long lens. But I shall have to wait until it is available refurbished, which is another 2 years I think...
Congrats in advance  ;)

This article made me wonder how our spouses feel being married to men with photography-related G.A.S.
Change the cycling stuff to photographic gear, and disregard the middle age part (for now), and you've got me.

Just wait until he gets into astrophotography. Then, instead of "Hey honey, can I spend $3500 on a new camera? Please!" or "Hey Honey, can I spend $2500 on a new lens? Please!" it'll be "Hey honey, can I spend $18,000 on this awesome new equatorial tracking mount with absolute encoding and in-mount sky modeling?" (no please, he's caught you off guard with a highly technical sounding thing...hoping your bewildered and will accidentally say yes), then "Hey honey, can I spend $10,000 on this new CCD camera?" and finally "Hey honey, can I spend $35,000 on a new Corrected Dall-Kirkam telescope from PlaneWave? PLEASE! I'll buy you that new car you want! :D"

Photography, expensive... Psh. You have NOOO IDEA. :P (I LOVE being single right now...)

Oh I can guess. The moment I realized that 400mmm was too short for small birds I decided to drop my pursuit into birding- it would have been a fruitless pursuit. And stars- well, they are that much further away (thinking focal lengths...)
Nope, I think I shall stay content watching you and other talented astrophotographers shoot the stars... and enjoy the photos :)

Oh geez, I have more bikes than lenses camera bodies, I have given up the lycra though.

Camera along on bike rides = bliss.

Nice, I am assuming you live in a very picturesque place (or have great street photography + sane drivers)

Good read, thanks for sharing.
Worth reading, drink a coffee, reading, drink a hot chocolate, reading, look at the snow outside the window and reading over and over again; hoping to get cured from GAS.

Yup, it's that hope (I won't open the next one) that keep us afloat and focused when the email from CanonPriceWatch arrives announcing a big sale... :P
I logged in maybe a couple of minutes too late when the 85/1.2 was restocked yesterday and I was so sad... have been chasing that lens for months now :(

This article hits uncomfortably close to home. In complete confidence of course, I can probably be persuaded to admit that I am seriously considering buying my next white lens on a 'buy now pay later' scheme - although I never go into debt for anything - ever. Photography has corrupted me...

Well, to be fair, white lenses can qualify as investments. I haven't seen one that's value has undergone depreciation. May I ask who is this worthy contender?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 103