July 25, 2014, 02:15:08 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 - MrFotoFool

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel SL1/Kiss X7 in White
« on: November 15, 2013, 12:12:13 AM »
I actually like the white.  I bought the EOS M in white when it went on sale.

Now if you want to see a really ugly color for a DSLR and lenses, check out this custom painted Nikon setup.

Since I could never, ever afford a 500 or 600 prime, this would be great for me if the optics were sharp enough.  But I am very dubious that a lens with that long of a zoom range could be very sharp.  What I would really like to see is for Sigma to produce a new version of their discontinued 500 f/7.2 lens.  Although I never used one, it was very inexpensive and I am sure they could make it very sharp as a fixed lens.  With the excellent high ISO of today's cameras and the inherently shallow depth of field at 500mm, not all of us need an f/4.  (Plus the size is much more manageable).

Software & Accessories / Re: Question about scanning film
« on: November 01, 2013, 10:46:02 PM »
Dust is a huge problem and there will always be some no matter how well you blow it off.  (Same is true when scanning prints on a flatbed).  The better scanners use software called Digital Ice that automatically detects dust and small scratches and clones over it.  If your scanner does not have that, I am afraid the only solution is to clone over the spots in Photoshop or Elements or Paintshop or similar.

Rewashing the negatives may may things worse because you get new water spots on the film when it dries.  The only way around this is to add a little Photofluo solution to the water, which helps it streak off.  I believe you also need to use distilled water.  But you will still get dust on it afterwards, so I do not think this is a practical solution.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 01, 2013, 10:39:43 PM »
US$3000 and 750g.

How is this going to compete against Sony A7/A7r?

1. No one really knows the price.  The 3K is just speculation as far as I can tell.

2. It will compete because there are A LOT more Nikon users with lenses invested than there are Sony users with lenses invested.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: October 27, 2013, 06:19:12 PM »
The fact that it (reportedly) has no video mode is reason enough to buy it.

Site Information / Re: new look for CR
« on: October 20, 2013, 11:25:38 PM »
I like it.  :)

PowerShot / Re: Limited Edition PowerShot Cameras Coming
« on: October 15, 2013, 11:54:52 PM »
For a limited edition, the prices seem pretty reasonable.  I personally think the G16 with the gold ring and dial look pretty cool.  I would probably get this version if I was in the market for one, but I am happy with the (299 deal) EOS M white with pancake for my point and shoot.  And yes, one of the reasons I jumped on that special was because it was available in the white version.  (And as for the other technology analogies mentioned, believe or not I do not own a cell phone or a television).

Lenses / Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« on: October 15, 2013, 12:19:02 PM »
If all the various threads on this lens are to be believed, it has about the widest copy to copy variance of any Canon lens made.  Some people - myself included - love it and find it to be very sharp.  I have never had an issue with sharpness or resolution.  The attached photo is blown up 40 by 60 inches in my loft and to me it looks great.  (Taken with Ektar 100 film, but I also have images with the same lens on a 5D2 digital that look good).

I have also not noticed the alleged purple fringing.  The only lens I have ever noticed it on is my Sigma 85 1.4 (in strongly backlit situations).  IMO, there are one of two things going on with this lens (and perhaps a combination of both).

1. There is a very real quality control issue with some great and some bad copies going out.

2. Since it is an L lens, photo geeks who take the time to post on forums are being overly critical and comparing it at unrealistic amounts of enlargement to more expensive prime lenses.

Software & Accessories / Re: Is Facebook worth it?
« on: October 01, 2013, 06:08:01 PM »
Yes, that should resolve the problems you've been having and no, your profile pictures can be different :)

Much thanks. Maybe I will give it another go.  My next question is, should I use a different email than the one I already tried?  Since the previous one is now listed as account disabled, I wonder if I would get the same message trying to create a personal profile with that same email?

Software & Accessories / Re: Is Facebook worth it?
« on: October 01, 2013, 04:53:59 PM »
Not sure if it matters, but perhaps I should clarify I am a fine art photographer and not a wedding or portrait photographer.

So, for those of you that are very familiar with Facebook's setup, let me ask this.  If I create a personal page first (which I would not really use, but whatever), can I then create an artist page and not have the same problem of being unable to load the profile picture and getting the account disabled message?  Also, does the profile picture have to be the same on my personal and business page?  (I would think not, because certainly JC Penney does not have a photo of their IT person as their profile picture - they have their logo, which is what I want).

Software & Accessories / Re: Is Facebook worth it?
« on: September 30, 2013, 10:34:40 PM »
I sincerely appreciate all those who took the time to respond.  Except for the slight derailment into some personal attacks, overall helpful.

I know enough already not to post high res images and to have everything watermarked, so I am not concerned about theft so much.

But I still have the problem that it would not even let me set up an account.  Someone at work today told me you have to have a personal page first and I see one of the replies to this thread says the same thing.  I wonder if this is really true?  It did not seem like a requirement when registering.  After all, if you are a large corporation, who is the personal profile you would link to?

Software & Accessories / Is Facebook worth it?
« on: September 30, 2013, 12:01:31 AM »
I have never had an interest in joining Facebook, but finally decided to make a business (artist) page for my photography.  During signup, it would not let me upload the profile photo (even though it was very small file and correct dimensions and file type).  When I clicked skip (to see if I could go back) it said account disabled.  I tried to reregister with a different email and it also said account disabled.

I questioned whether or not Facebook is worth doing, and since it seems they will not even let me sign up I guess not.  They also do not have an email or phone for tech support, so my gut insinct is to avoid it entirely.  My only reason for signing up was to add the icon on my website to try to improve search engine rankings.


Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics 2
« on: September 16, 2013, 11:18:34 AM »
500 f4 is of course a gorgeous lens, but it is too large and too expensive for most of us mere mortals.  It is also a bit overkill for zoos (works great with wild birds, however).  I think your idea of the 70-300L is a great choice for zoo photography.  It gets very good reviews.  Just remember it does NOT take extenders, but 300 should be enough reach for zoo work.  One alternative, the route I went, is to get a 70-200 f2_8 and use it with a 1.4x extender when needed.  I bought the non IS version last year, as it is a thousand bucks cheaper than the ISii version.  They have now discontinued the non IS, but some dealers still have stock.

EOS Bodies / Re: Finally a rumor again...
« on: September 15, 2013, 05:35:30 PM »
No links to this rumor???

Landscape / Re: Grand Canyon Sunset
« on: September 15, 2013, 05:33:44 PM »
...I'm heading out that way in November along with Zion and Canyon X.  Any pointers for me regarding location?...

I live in Arizona and it is almost impossible to take a bad picture at the Grand Canyon.  The entire South Rim has magnificent views.  The portion to the west of the village is closed to cars and can only be accessed on their bus.  Not bad, but you need to be ready to pack up and catch the last bus as soon as the sunset is over (or walk about a mile back to the village).  The main views east of the village are a bit farther out, maybe two to six miles depending, but these are quite nice.  Moran point may be the best, but as I said they are all good.  Elk are also prolific in the park the last few years and any time at dawn or dusk is a guarantee you will see several.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15