September 16, 2014, 03:38:06 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 - Famateur

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 01:00:42 PM »
I'm all about competition, so bring it on, Nikon -- whatever you can throw at the market.

One thing I'd love to see is a Canon full-frame body with the tilty/flippy LCD of my 70D. Maybe in a 6DII? Give it similar AF points to the 70D, and I'd go for it. I guess I'm saying I'd love my 70D with a full-frame sensor at a 6D price.  ;D

2
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you crop (and why)?
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:14:56 PM »
Another reason to crop: Sometimes something other than a "standard" aspect ratio is most compelling for the image.

I'm a big fan of the Golden Ratio, but sometimes an extreme crop (thinking very narrow and tall, or the opposite -- very wide and short) can suit an image nicely. With all the megapixels we have these days, you can do that and still print quite large. Add a custom mat and frame, and you have something interesting on the wall that stands out from all the other standard rectangles...


3
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you crop (and why)?
« on: September 11, 2014, 01:14:06 PM »
I thought it was that "real photographers" don't use AF or exposure metering.   ;D

Nor zoom lenses!  :P

4
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you crop (and why)?
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:37:14 PM »
Never understood the "I never crop" mentality myself.

For me, a photograph is about what's pleasing to my eye. Composition and framing are a big part of that, and while I'm always intentional in my composition when shooting, an artistic eye will often "see" a variety of pleasing alternatives after the fact.

"Create Virtual Copy" is my friend, and I often use it just to produce different images with differing crops...

5
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: September 10, 2014, 11:34:42 AM »
If you want to get the best out of your photographs, and you're willing to learn and use a good RAW processing program like Lightroom, then yes. Switching from out-of-camera JPEG to RAW will likely do more for your photography than any upgrade in camera or lens.

I admit that RAW intimidated me a bit at first. The file size devoured my disk space, and I was finding DPP a little challenging. After seeing so many really helpful YouTube videos on Lightroom, I finally bought it, and I haven't looked back. The file size is a cheap price to pay for the results one can achieve. I can't count the number of times I've been able to recover a hastily snapped photo from a family vacation and produce not only a good "memory" photo but a beautiful photograph. When I see the difference between the camera's JPEG and my processed RAW file, it's shocking.

Before I was confident in RAW processing, I decided to shoot RAW+JPEG so I had the option to process a RAW file or not. While I'd have no problem doing RAW-only these days, I find that RAW+JPEG works nicely for me. Here's the process I tend to follow:

1. Shoot in RAW+JPEG
2. Import into Lightroom
3. Cull images that are obviously useless
4. Flag the images that I may want to process
5. Delete the RAW copies of the rest
6. Process and export my flagged images

This leaves me with RAW files for the keepers and JPEGs for the "nice to remember the moment, but not a great photo" images. Because the camera produced those JPEGs, they don't add to my workflow.

PS: Culling is probably the hardest part of the process for me. You can't really re-create a photograph, and once it's deleted, it's gone forever (well, once it's overwritten, anyway).

That reminds me -- a relative of mine was lamenting that while trying to transfer photos from her memory card to her computer, she accidentally deleted them -- hundreds of great family photos. Thankfully, when you delete a file, you only delete the address to that file (giving the system permission to write new data to that space). Since she hadn't taken any photos since the incident, I was able to use a free program (in this case, Recuva, from Piriform Software) to recover every single photo. She was elated.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 03:01:57 PM »
I'm confused. I've read the whole thread so far expecting a debate on...global warming.  :o

Author Topic: The day of the anti-climatic announcement  (Read 7518 times)

7
Post Processing / Re: Too much chroma?
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:02:20 PM »
Cool image. If it were mine, I'd probably paint some warmth over the foreground. It seems too cool compared to the blazing sky. Maybe add a little more contrast to the foreground, too.

I'd love to do a photo safari some day...

8
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: September 03, 2014, 12:52:53 PM »
@infrared and Akrobatiks: Great images! They're examples of what I consider tastefully done HDR. Thanks for sharing!

9
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: September 03, 2014, 12:50:26 PM »
For me, HDR processing is like adding vignettes: If it's immediately noticeable, it's usually too much.

Typical HDR image processing tends to look flat (two-dimensional), have strange smears and halos, crunchy texture and over-the-top colors. When I see an image, I want to see depth. I want to feel it pull me into its perspective. With the typical HDR image, it's almost like my eyes don't know where to start -- even with an otherwise excellent composition. Instead of a wide-angle view of the interior of a rusted-out car, with mountains and sky in the distance out the windows, I see a everything at once, as if it was on the same plane -- like a chalk painting. Just a visual overload for me.

Of course for many, HDR processing is artistic in nature. That's cool. It adds variety. Not my cup o' tea, though. I'll stick to using HDR to overcome the limits of my camera's sensor and blend exposures to produce what still looks like a realistic photograph. For me, typical HDR processing works against my pursuit of depth and perspective through light and shadow.

To each their own. The whole point of photography is to produce an image that's pleasing to someone, even if only for the one behind the camera. If you like artsy HDR, by all means, keep doing it. Life is short -- do what you love and makes you truly happy.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 11:42:51 AM »
Why has this made it to page 30?

Because there is an extremely high correlation between Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and frequency of internet postings.

Take some OCD, coupled with a matter of life and death, plus a lack of humour.... throw in some raging testosterone and keep the whole mixture simmering over a troll baited flame.... Add DR for seasoning.... and you get enough posts to choke the server.

Don Haines
Posts: 3084

 ;)


And of those 3,084 posts, 3,083 have been cheerful, humorous, positive, constructive and/or peace-making. I'd say 3,084 were that way, but hey -- nobody's perfect.  :P

11
Software & Accessories / Re: Optimizing your monitor for print production...
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:47:30 PM »
JD,

It's too bad your thread didn't come a few days earlier -- Amazon had the i1Display Pro on sale for $189.

Getting a tool to calibrate your monitor really is necessary if you want the best results. Another thing to keep in mind is that your monitor will need to be recalibrated periodically, as it will drift over time. I recalibrate mine every month or so.

Monitor calibration is just one half of the situation. The other is the printing side. Not sure if they will, but if Costco can provide you with an ICC/ICM profile for the printer/paper combination they use, you can load that in Lightroom to "soft-proof" your images before sending them out to print. I agree with others in asking their techs what colorspace to edit in for best results.

Just a side note, I have a Dell IPS display calibrated with the i1Display Pro. It's paired with the Canon PIXMA Pro-100 that I picked up from Adorama (with 50 sheets of 13"x19" paper) for $34, after rebate (I tell you this because they tend to do these deals a few times a year). As long as I turn OFF color management in the printer driver's advanced settings and then load the Canon profile in Lightroom and tell Lightroom to manage the color, I get beautiful prints that match my display. In fact, I was quite giddy at my first batch of prints (after figuring out to turn off the printer driver's color management -- it gave a magenta cast).

I hope this helps some!

12
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 30, 2014, 04:26:11 AM »
Jon, Lee, thanks for all the info. It's been enlightening.

Cheers!

13
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:54:42 PM »
@Lee Jay: Thanks for the detailed replies. Reducing noise at the expense of resolution -- that sums it up well, I think.

In the past (and this is often how it's presented by "experts"), I've thought that, given identical sensor technology, going from 20.2MP to 24MP would just translate into more noise, and I guess it does, but if I scale it back down to 20.2MP, I haven't lost anything -- or maybe even slightly gained. Then in optimal conditions, I have more resolution, and in noise-producing conditions, I can scale the image down and be no worse off than the 20.2MP version of the same sensor tech.

Does that sound right? If so, then bring on the pixels! I wouldn't mind the flexibility to compress for noisy images and have extra resolution for low-noise images.

---

Interesting stuff. I'm open to explanations if anyone else wants to add, but this seems to make sense...

14
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:28:19 PM »
Dare I wade into the pizza war?  :P

Perhaps I can translate it into a wooden pizza to fit one of my other hobbies: If I have a 15" maple disc, cutting it into 6 pieces WOULD give me more maple surface area than cutting it into 8 pieces. Why? because there is waste from blade kerf. If I have a 1/8" kerf, I lose an approximately 1/8" slice of material with each cut. Let's say now that we fill in each cut with a 1/8" slice of ebony so we don't lose overall surface area when we glue it all up. The disc maintains its original surface area, but there is still less maple surface area with 8 slices than with 6. Using a 1/16" kerf blade will increase the ratio of maple surface area to ebony, but there will still be less maple surface area with 8 slices than with 6.

Now imagine the disc is actually a rectangle, and the pieces are squares instead of pizza slices. The maple is the photo-sensitive portion of the sensor, and the ebony is the border around each pixel. If sensor size and transistor size are constant, doesn't increasing the number of pixels increase the number of borders and transistors, and doesn't that reduce the portion of the overall sensor that receives light? Is moving from a 500nm process to a 180nm process like going from a 1/8" kerf to 9/200" kerf?

I'm obviously not a sensor geek, so I might be completely misunderstanding pixels, borders, et cetera. What am I missing in this analogy?  :P

What you're missing is gapless microlenses, which essentially render the "blade kerf" largely moot by concentrating the light into the light-sensitive area between the "kerf lines".

Interesting. So you're saying that the microlenses can redirect virtually all the light (that would have fallen on the border) into the photo site (or that if any is lost, the final result is not appreciably different)? Good to know.

So moving to a smaller process to shrink the borders does not affect the amount of light captured for each pixel because of the gapless microlenses?

If microlens size = photo site + border, then it would seem that a larger pixel-with-microlens would gather more light than a smaller pixel-with-microlens. Are you saying that the resolution (given the same sensor dimensions) is higher for the smaller pixels so when you compress the image to the same resolution as the sensor with the larger (fewer) pixels, the overall light/data collected for the multiple smaller pixels, now sized-down to the lower resolution end up producing essentially the same image quality? Am I understanding this right? Does this mean that if I want to enjoy the same image quality as the sensor with fewer pixels I have to compress the resolution of my images to match?

One other thought: microlenses perfectly focusing the light on the photo site sounds great on paper. How precisely do the lenses do this in the real world? If they're nearly perfect, how in the world do they accomplish such precision on such a small scale? Simply amazing to me...

If the microlenses do their job, then I guess it's not light/surface-area that makes the difference between crop and full frame. Could it be that for the smaller pixels, there's more opportunity for noise to be introduced by the supporting circuitry? Something must be happening, because it seems that sensors with larger pixels seem to do better for noise at high ISO.

I'm obviously showing my ignorance here, and at the risk of inviting the sensor-tech-savvy among us to bury me in information over my head, but hey...why not?  :P

15
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:49:05 PM »
Dare I wade into the pizza war?  :P

Perhaps I can translate it into a wooden pizza to fit one of my other hobbies: If I have a 15" maple disc, cutting it into 6 pieces WOULD give me more maple surface area than cutting it into 8 pieces. Why? because there is waste from blade kerf. If I have a 1/8" kerf, I lose an approximately 1/8" slice of material with each cut. Let's say now that we fill in each cut with a 1/8" slice of ebony so we don't lose overall surface area when we glue it all up. The disc maintains its original surface area, but there is still less maple surface area with 8 slices than with 6. Using a 1/16" kerf blade will increase the ratio of maple surface area to ebony, but there will still be less maple surface area with 8 slices than with 6.

Now imagine the disc is actually a rectangle, and the pieces are squares instead of pizza slices. The maple is the photo-sensitive portion of the sensor, and the ebony is the border around each pixel. If sensor size and transistor size are constant, doesn't increasing the number of pixels increase the number of borders and transistors, and doesn't that reduce the portion of the overall sensor that receives light? Is moving from a 500nm process to a 180nm process like going from a 1/8" kerf to 9/200" kerf?

I'm obviously not a sensor geek, so I might be completely misunderstanding pixels, borders, et cetera. What am I missing in this analogy?  :P
I would say that you have it correct and that your analogy is cutting edge :)

I saw what you did there.  ;D

By the way, for your birthday next weekend, maybe the "big white" socks you get will have an "L" series red stripe and weather sealing for long canoe trips.  8)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18