Messages

16

Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?

« on: March 07, 2013, 04:08:02 PM »

I was there a few years ago, DV is really an astonishing place.  I'd say how you edit depends on the feeling you want to convey to the reader.  DV is many things, depending on the light.  It can appear stark or full of life and beauty; it can appear desolate or rich; it can appear dead or full of life.  You need to decide which of these you want to convey to your viewer.

When I was there it was full sun, though not direct.  There was plenty of contrast and sky color.  What I remember of this spot (and some others in DV) is the layers of detail: the sweep of the immense views, then the nearer-structure of the badlands and nearby mountains, and finally the personal-level detail of plants, pebbles and sand.  Each scope had its own palette and texture.  I could spend weeks photographing there.

What do you want this photo to say?

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Need help. Canon 60D for sports--is it better to pony up for the 7D?

« on: March 06, 2013, 03:36:12 PM »

I've photographed exactly one (US style) football game, involving adult amateurs.  I used my 60D and 70-200 f/4 in near-perfect lighting conditions.  With this combo, my "technical" hit rate was unbelievable: I think I threw out half a dozen out of hundreds on pure technical grounds (exposure, out of focus, motion blur, etc).  Of course, other photos were thrown out just because they were not interesting.  My one major problem was buffer depth: I tend to shoot raw only, and that would not give me enough frames to follow a play through, or to switch from where I thought the play was going to where it actually went.  I found myself waiting for the highlight of each play, rather than following it through.  (yes, there's a lot to be said for anticipating your shots)  If you stick with the 60D, be prepared to shoot JPEG for the added buffer depth.

I can't speak to the question of shooting sports in low light.  If you plan to shoot in the rain, I suggest getting a rain cover for anything short of a 1-series body.

18

Software & Accessories / Re: Geotagging Software Recommendations?

« on: February 28, 2013, 08:12:09 PM »

If you already have Lightroom 4, that will do it.

19

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chikadees in flight

« on: February 12, 2013, 01:26:22 PM »

Magic Lantern has a "trap focus" feature that I've been meaning to try with birds.  If you find a method that works with some consistency, please share.

http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Unified/UserGuide#trap-focus

20

Lighting / Re: Specular Highlights... Feed Back Please

« on: February 01, 2013, 11:20:15 AM »

black cards to flag of the softboxes to the sides of camera position.

The black card idea is interesting, but a studio still-life like this seems a perfect candidate to bracket exposures for a composite image.  I don't (necessarily) mean feeding it to an HDR program, but more "old school" style, combining the parts of each image that are properly exposed.  This would give you maximum flexibility to expose each part exactly as you like.

 

21

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.

« on: January 26, 2013, 04:06:48 PM »

After reading your comments I've now been considering is talking to him into hiring a photographer, and then I'll just bring my 6d, and pancake lens just for some candid photos to give to them.

If he insists on me, I'll then tell him to at least hire someone for the ceremony and I'll shoot the reception.

If he really insists on not hiring a pro, then screw it, I'll just take my stuff and he'll get what he gets!

I'd much rather see them with quality photos than meh photos, from their friend who just does it as a hobby.

Sounds like you're thinking clearly about it.  I'll add a few more items in case you end up shooting.  I'm an amateur who's done a few wedding gigs as a second shooter , so this is from someone closer to your level. (apologies if others have covered this ground, I haven't carefully read the entire thread)

* Talk to the bride, in person, and make sure she understands the expectations.  The fact that your friend says it's OK is not good enough.  Her needs/wants/expectations may be different from his.

* Weddings move fast, so simplify as much as you can.  Don't expect to have lots of time to change gear.

* Better to know a few items of gear well, than take a lot of stuff and lose track.  Take one good low/medium zoom, and one long zoom.  No other lenses are needed.

* using bounce flash in the reception (or at the ceremony, with the agreement of the couple and officiant) is not that hard.  You can spend 30 minutes with a couple friends in a dimly lit room to figure out the settings you need.  (hint: use manual with flash)  Don't get creative with flash until you know what you're doing.

* Get the "script" of the wedding in advance.  You'll need to anticipate the action to be in position.

* For the reception, couple pictures, and other photos for which you have time, don't be afraid to take a little time to set up a shot, or do a little directing of the action.  Yes, it's their wedding, but they'll be happy to let you guide them to a better shot, for example to get a better background, nicer lighting, etc.

* If it's a big "family and friends" wedding, try to get photos of everyone, especially older relatives and close friends.  No one knows how much time great-Aunt Helen has left, and they will appreciate photos of her dressed well and with a big smile.

* Take a few cute photos of kids.

* If the wedding is on Sunday, see if there's a local wedding on Saturday, then offer the pro photographer to be his/her free assistant for that gig.  Seeing behind the scenes just once can make  a difference.

* Take your time with the group photos.  Use a tripod, live view and check your depth-of-field charts (in advance) to make sure you do your best.  Don't use flash here unless you can bounce off a high ceiling or back wall.  Be willing to turn the flash off and make do if needed.

When in doubt, turn off the flash, set to P, and go for composition rather than technique.  Your 6D will do well in low light compare to all the P&S in the crowd.

22

Landscape / Re: Need critique for future improvement

« on: January 21, 2013, 01:59:57 AM »

Clearly you know your equipment -- your technique (for these shots) seems solid.  The composition and concept are also very good.  While I agree with the previous comment to "keep doing what you're doing," I'd also note that there's a thematic similarity in the images -- I'd encourage you to try more variety in subjects and theme, just for the sake of experimentation.  I don't mean to divert you from the subjects that inspire or provoke you, but you can grow as an artist by challenging yourself to try the unfamiliar.

Note:I'm also an amateur, so my advice may not be worth very much.

23

Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality

« on: January 15, 2013, 02:31:40 PM »

If you do not understand WHAT you can do in the REAL world with larger DR , why still discussing it?

Let me illustrate it this way: people have used slide film for decades, and it is supposed to have limited DR.  Apparently, slide film had other qualities that, for many purposes, were more important than its limited DR, and  many people chose that compromise.  Sure, photographers would have loved slide film that had 14 stops of DR, while retaining the other qualities of slide film, but that was not available. 

The same is true for modern DSLR's: we would all love DSLR's that have 16 stops of clean DR, while retaining all the other qualities of the overall device (AF, speed, high ISO, color qualities, etc).  No one (so far as I can tell) is saying that they don't want more DR.  They're saying that, as with slide film, they have chosen their compromise until a better compromise is available.  At least, so it appears to me.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 05, 2013, 09:19:25 AM »

I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

Sophisms?  I do not think it means what you think it means.

I don't think anyone is trying to deny "the very existence" of the term.  "Overpriced" simply doesn't have any meaning divorced from its context.  For example:

• I won't buy a 5D3 at $3500, so it's overpriced for me
• I won't buy a D800 at $2000, so it's also overpriced for me
• for a company like Canon, the term overpriced means they're not selling enough of them to meet their financial goals.

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

I won't buy it at that price so it's overpriced for me.  Yet people do pay ridiculous amounts of money for restored old cars, even though their intrinsic quality is much lower than would be justified by the cost.

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

That means it's overpriced for you.  Some people think its qualities do justify the higher cost, therefore it is not overpriced for them.

And what about a manual-focus Zeiss 100mm lens that costs $1800, is that overpriced by your definition?  Why or why not? I can tell you that I won't buy it at that price, so it's overpriced for me.  There are plenty of wealthy people paying what I consider to be ridiculous amounts of money for Leica manual focus cameras; are those cameras overpriced?  I can tell you that they're overpriced for me.

This is simple economics:

• "Overpriced" is a relative term, and cannot reasonably  be used without the context.  You can't reasonably say "X is overpriced," you must say "X is overpriced for..."
• If you will not buy a product at its current price, then it's overpriced for you
• If someone else will buy a product at its current price, then it's not overpriced for them
• If Canon fails to sell enough of these products at their current price, then it's overpriced for them

25

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 04, 2013, 08:05:05 PM »

overpriced = priced higher than perceived value

Value is certainly subjective.
However, if the next iPhone is priced at $1000, it will be considered as overpriced by most people.
Same for Canon products.

What if that $1000 iPhone sold at, say, a 25% HIGHER rate than the previous model; would it still be fair to say that it was overpriced, given that so many people were willing to pay the price for it?

Of course, it's obvious where my argument is going: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."  At least this is true in the absence of market manipulation.  If enough people are willing to buy enough of these overpriced items so that it's profitable for the seller then the item is, de facto, not overpriced.

The explanation for the 5D3 price history is likely very simple: Canon thought people would pay a high price on release; many did.  Then demand dropped off, so the price dropped accordingly.  Will the higher price sour the perception of Canon to the point where Canon users migrate?  Who's to say?  If it does then Canon will change their market tactics.  Canon is not my friend or spouse, I don't need them to like, love or respect me, nor I them.  They're a business counterparty: they want me to give them lots of my money, and I want them to give me lots of value. 

26

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 04, 2013, 07:01:09 PM »

overpriced

Please define this term precisely.  In all seriousness, I don't know what you mean here.  To me this word could have any of these definitions:

• higher price than I'm willing to pay for it
• higher price than my (hypothetical) customer is willing to pay for it
• artificially high price due to collusion with other companies; i.e., not subject to normal supply/demand market pressures

Is it not one of these?

27

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 04, 2013, 12:20:37 AM »

The cost of owning Canon gear has increased by 4 fold over the long term.
The easiest way I can explain this is that this means that you just essentially paid $14,000 for your 5D Mark III, $4,000 for your 7D, $ 2,500 for your 60D, $7,000 for your 5D Mark II, and $9,000 for your 24-70mm Mk II etc.

My 60D is a case of wine.  I paid $900 (I think) for it.  I will consume it, then it will be worth nothing.  If, perchance, I'm able to sell it for a few quid when I upgrade, so much the better.  Modern digital cameras are consumable items, not assets.

What Canon has done is they have simply hidden the cost of ownership

The cost of ownership is $900 for n years, where 0 < n <= 5.

taking a long complex loan against yourself.

OK, now you've got me curious: please try to explain this in a different way.

buy hundreds Canon pro bodies a year and have enough left over to live comfortably after throwing those in the trash

Please add me to your trash queue.

This will backfire for Canon... People aren't dumb

I find myself skeptical.

28

Lenses / Re: Bokeh confusion.

« on: December 27, 2012, 09:27:28 AM »

I'm just an amateur, but I'll throw in a few thoughts/ideas regarding the bathtub shot.  First, there's a right-left imbalance on the OOF areas.  That distracts my eye from the subject.  Second, clods of dirt don't make good bokeh; it might have worked better when the field was sprouts 6-12 inches high.  Third, this might be a job that needs maximum DOF on capture, then add blur in PS afterwards.  Fourth, maybe not use blur at all, but capture at full DOF and slightly desaturate the dirt. 

You might be able to rescue the shot by adding blur to the dirt in post, but balance it left-right.  Again, I'm an amateur, so take this FWIW.

One more thing: it's a really interesting concept -- if you can make the execution work it could be a very compelling image.

29

Canon General / Re: Canon sent me an opinion survey

« on: December 23, 2012, 09:23:02 PM »

I also did the survey.  I told them their lenses were too expensive, and my future lenses might not be Canon brand.

30

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: December 21, 2012, 12:49:36 AM »

Adults make decisions about where to spend their money... you have no one to blame but yourself if you have buyer’s remorse.

+1

My primary income is from investments. I really have no personal feelings when it comes to taking a loss on something. It's business.

My point is simply that Canon is actively trying to screw over it's customers without lube with absurd and insulting markups.

How ironic: your income is from investments, yet you're upset with Canon for maximizing shareholder value.  The mind wobbles!