October 01, 2014, 11:05:39 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 - EdB

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
16
Canon General / Re: My Canon Story
« on: March 18, 2014, 09:03:37 PM »
Welcome to the thread Alex. It's nice to have a place for us old guys, huh? :D


I was a Velvia shooter, I don't understand the question "Too much colour!"  :D

Ha! Touche.


Hi Ed.
Too much colour? I would say that if the image is a true representation of the colour of the sky/reflection when captured then no, not too much colour, if however you have turned up the red then yes possibly too much colour for some!
I like it so IMHO not too much colour either way!
Is it a humble opinion if I add voice to it, am I shouting it (IMHO) I capitalise because it is an acronym?

Cheers Graham.


Well, it is enhanced but I've never had a problem with enhancement. If it was good enough for Adams it's good enough for me. I think he would have loved the digital age, it allows us to do the things he pioneered with black and white film and paper much easier and also do it in color.


17
Canon General / Re: My Canon Story
« on: March 17, 2014, 11:27:58 PM »

Ed,

I also remember getting excited when XP2 came out and we could push it to 800 with good results. Iso is funny, I hovered between 25 and 125 for many years, now 12,800 is taken for granted, I really need to get me a 1DX.

If I wasn't shooting fast moving stuff, Tri-X was my go to film, love the grain from that film. The 6D does 12,800 pretty good and you'll save about 5k or so. haha

Finally got out today and did a bit of shooting.Too much color?

18
Canon General / Re: My Canon Story
« on: March 15, 2014, 02:07:25 AM »
Working in a small town, high school football stadiums and basketball courts were pretty dimly lit, 3200 was sooooo much better than pushed Tri-X. I can't even guess how many rolls of that stuff I went through. I shot pretty much exclusively B&W back then for PJ, color was reserved for events and portraits and that was always neg film. Most of the chrome film I shot was just for myself and even then, it wasn't too much. I've always been fond of B&W even today.

19
Canon General / Re: My Canon Story
« on: March 15, 2014, 01:35:40 AM »
Haha, awesome. I'm guessing you thought T-MAX 3200 was a godsend when it came out as well? lol

20
Canon General / My Canon Story
« on: March 15, 2014, 01:01:16 AM »
Back in the 70s as a young teenager I received my first Canon from my dad, an AE-1 with a power winder. Two frames per second! Woohoo! It served me well and if it wasn't stolen I'd still have it today. In my late teens I acquired the F1n and shot sports for a small town newspaper, that's it on the left in the attached image with a 300 f4 FD. Awesome camera and built like a tank. Up to five fps with the motor drive and a switch on it to rewind the film! The body even worked without a battery from 1/125 to 1/2000 IIRC. X-sync was at 1/90 and I think 1/60 on the AE1.

I also acquired a used T90, cool little camera that served me well until it was stolen along with the AE1. The theft happened quite some time after Canon introduced the EOS system. I was a bit pissed when they changed the lens mount and vowed not to switch. Since most of my lenses were also stolen I broke that vow after considering Nikon and decided to stick with Canon and got the EOS 3 with the 300 4L you see in the pic and also a 28-105 lens. The 3 is such an elegant camera, simple and ergonomic and the eye control focus was brilliant. If I could have any Canon film camera from the past with a digital back, it would be the 3. Along with the PJ I also did event stuff until I got sick of it and quit and went to work in construction.

When digital came around I bought the original digital rebel just to have fun with it. That's the third camera from the left with the 28-105 on it. Weird lens on a crop body but it was good enough at the time. I didn't buy another digital camera until the G9 (that's it sitting on the typewriter and both still work) and played with that until I bought a Fuji XP1 about a year and a half ago.

That leads me to my latest Canon, the 6D with the 24-105L. Just got it today and I was quite surprised at the heft of the lens compared to the 28-105 and the Fugi stuff. It was hard to resist the B&H/Amazon deal at 2k for both.

I've shot a few events with the Fuji and found I didn't hate it as much as I had in the past. Not sure how much I'll get back into that, don't want to repeat history. There's nothing worse that doing something you love and have it start to feel like a job. But a few jobs will help pay off the new stuff.

I'm curious to see the IQ difference between the 28-105 and the L, haha. I've been playing with the 6 in my dark living room and I think the AF complaints are quite exaggerated, seems pretty snappy to me, (granted, it's not real world), especially compared to the XP1. The Fuji is good in normal light but does struggle in low light at times. Some friends are doing a tough mudder next month and I can't wait to see how it does but for the most part I do landscapes and a bit of urban stuff. I also want to try it with starscapes, thinking about getting the Sammy 14 for that.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

21
Photography Technique / Re: Can you share your workflow?
« on: March 11, 2014, 11:26:10 PM »
I really hate the term workflow, it sounds like someone is on their period while working. As far as my processing goes, import, rate, tag and adjust whatever needs to be adjusted. Every image is different so there is no set profile or filter that I use. I start with the raw and do whatever I feel is right for the image.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony raw files lossy compressed
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:14:04 PM »
I agree most will never notice this.

But, I also agree that this is the sort of thing that will totally turn off some from ever using the camera professionally.  So if Sony wants that market, next version of the camera needs to fix this.

I think the thing that turns most people off of Sony is their continuous changing of their lens mount. Sony needs to pick one and stick with it. And also developing mores lenses, two good ones is not enough. This camera could be an awesome landscape/astro camera but it needs native lenses.

23
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 07:21:11 PM »
Art, like any other object for sale, is all about marketing.

24
PowerShot / Re: More Product Confirmations for CP+
« on: February 10, 2014, 08:02:38 PM »
"Powershot G1 X II" -could naming get any worse? I guessing it won't be called that.

How about the PowerShot G1 Y?


Or better, Powershot GFY.

25
Lenses / Re: Another strike against UV filters
« on: December 17, 2013, 11:10:46 PM »
In 40 years of shooting I have had a total of one lens scratched on the front element and it never showed in a print. Filters are a waste of money.

26
Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:49:11 PM »
Living in western new york it is not easy to find places free of light pollution.

This is one of the best places on the east coast, probably not too far of a drive for you. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/findapark/cherrysprings/ Haven't been there myself but I do plan to go someday. Five hour drive for me and planning around the weather can be tough.

27
I was Running XP + CS3 for years and Updated to Win 7 64-bit and My CS3 still works.

The ten year old PS 7 works on Win7 as well.

28
Software & Accessories / Re: Poor Lightroom output of Jpg's
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:54:22 PM »
Adobe is now charging a monthly fee for proper jpeg color output.

29
Quote
Shooting with a long lens is just as disrespectful as getting up close. If you believe the people you are photographing don't want to be photographed in their grief then don't do it from any distance. That type of photography gives us just as much as a bad name.

Perhaps. But in the case I cited, which was just one of many examples I could have cited to underscore my point that longer focal lengths can be useful in street shooting, I didn't know that they didn't want to be photographed. I just thought it was disrespectful to even interrupt them to ask, which I typically do before shooting anyone. We're all going to be in a funeral one day, no one escapes that one; it's part of life. And the image I snapped from afar was quite respectful in that it showed little detail of the individuals involved, and more of the procession, the custom, the way in which this particular culture says goodbye to a loved one.

As others have pointed out, it's not productive to try and define "street shooting" for anyone else. But I think we can probably agree that street shooting occurs "on the street," that is, in public spaces where we all give up a bit of our privacy by virtue of simply being there.

Removing yourself from the situation by increasing distance removes a lot of emotion from the image. Watch the video Mark posted of Nachtwey, he is right in the middle of the scene very close to his subjects. You don't get those kinds of images being two blocks away. I said it before, if you don't feel comfortable shooting it up close, don't shoot it at all.

In the case of the funeral procession and without seeing the image, I would venture a guess that the shot is more documentary in nature than actual street photography.

And FWIW, Nachtwey doesn't shoot street photography, he is a documentary photographer. A lot of people seem to think if it's shot on the street it is "street" photography. That doesn't cut it in my view.

30
That is akin to sniping.
Find yourself a good place to hide and wait?
Sorry mate, but this voyeurism, not street photography.
Having the balls to get up close and personal to take the shot in the first place is the whole point of street photography...

ET

P-a-h-le-a-s-e: "sniping", "voyeurism?" "Having the balls to get up close?" You need to grow some manners there, Evil Ted. If not, you're the photographer who will give the rest of us a bad name.


Shooting with a long lens is just as disrespectful as getting up close. If you believe the people you are photographing don't want to be photographed in their grief then don't do it from any distance. That type of photography gives us just as much as a bad name.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4