October 21, 2014, 10:18:14 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 4 ... 19
16
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...

17
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!

18
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.

19
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

20
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!

21
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!

22
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...

23
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

24
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)

25
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:15:31 PM »
When was the last time that we had two sensors having the exact same MP resolution but were "different " ?
I'm afraid it looks like the 7D II will have the 70D sensor . The 70D sensor is pretty good though, its just that we are expecting two sensor revolutions in two years ..which is incredibly rare.

Agreed. I know everyone (including me) hopes that the 7DX will have some jaw-dropping sensor tech, but the 7D and 60D shared the same 18MP sensor. The differentiation that justified the price difference was AF system, FPS, buffer depth, weather sealing and build quality.

Why should we expect the next generation of each camera to have a different relationship to one another? It would be unusual for Canon to make a "successor" to the 7D that was positioned differently in the market. Not saying it can't happen -- just saying it seems most likely that the positioning of the two products in relation to one another continues.

The 7DX uses the same sensor as the 70D and continues the differentiation with beefy AF system, FPS, buffer depth and even more solid build. Seems predictable to me. Of course, it's the predictability that gets so many shorts in a twist on this forum...  :-X


Your logic might be correct just maybe the relationship is wrong.  What is to say the 7DII will not have the same sensor as the 80D

Good point! Let's hope so!!!  :D

26
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:27:46 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

27
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:51:20 AM »
When was the last time that we had two sensors having the exact same MP resolution but were "different " ?
I'm afraid it looks like the 7D II will have the 70D sensor . The 70D sensor is pretty good though, its just that we are expecting two sensor revolutions in two years ..which is incredibly rare.

Agreed. I know everyone (including me) hopes that the 7DX will have some jaw-dropping sensor tech, but the 7D and 60D shared the same 18MP sensor. The differentiation that justified the price difference was AF system, FPS, buffer depth, weather sealing and build quality.

Why should we expect the next generation of each camera to have a different relationship to one another? It would be unusual for Canon to make a "successor" to the 7D that was positioned differently in the market. Not saying it can't happen -- just saying it seems most likely that the positioning of the two products in relation to one another continues.

The 7DX uses the same sensor as the 70D and continues the differentiation with beefy AF system, FPS, buffer depth and even more solid build. Seems predictable to me. Of course, it's the predictability that gets so many shorts in a twist on this forum...  :-X

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:48:48 AM »

Happy Birthday!
I hit 55 next weekend... I asked for a 600F4 for my birthday.... I will probably get a pair of socks :)

Hopefully they are "Canon" socks!   :o
With size 13 1/2 feet I am almost guaranteed "Big Whites"...

Maybe they can put a red stripe around them for some "L" series comfort, or a pair that's "weather sealed" for those long canoe trips.  :D



* This thread is growing faster than I can keep up, so sorry to reply to something several pages ago...



29
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:45:53 AM »
How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them?  They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up.  While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

A lot of people do just that, yes. However, I have been showing examples where underexposing was a necessity. I'm an "afternoon landscaper"...I can never get up early enough in the morning (which is really early, like 3:30am), in order to be able to drive out to the kinds of beautiful landscapes I want to photograph, but get there in time to set up and be ready to go by the time the rising sun lights the clouds afire with color.

So, I'm stuck taking my photos in the afternoon, when the setting sun washes the clouds in color. Problem is, all the mountains are to my west, same direction as the sun.

As I stated, there are valid reasons, albeit very rare ones.  In your case, not strictly a necessity, since you could get up at 3:30a but don't want to.   :P

Consider the USA – what states are immediately to the east of large mountain ranges?  Yours, Nevada, etc.  Tiny fraction of the US population, so even if there are the same per capita number of landscape shooters, that's not many people. 

That's really the whole point here...the number of people who require (or believe they require) that kind of shadow lifting capability is minuscule relative to the dSLR market.

I'm feeling lucky to be in the Salt Lake Valley -- mountain ranges to my east and west.  ;D

Whether the sun is rising or setting, I've got options for whether or not to shoot into the sun.  :P


30
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:17:55 AM »
@jrista: Spending hours in post sounds downright painful. If high dynamic range landscapes were my bread and butter, but my loyalty was to Canon, I'd be frustrated, too. Perhaps a good ND grad filter might be preferable to hours of post between now and when you either pick up a D800/810 or Canon unveils a comparable alternative?

Also, on the sunflowers -- one thing I've always loved about them at sunset is how because the petals aren't opaque, they glow when back-lit. Just my taste, but I would probably leave them in shadow enough that the petals that glow have contrast to those that are in shadow. That might give more overall contrast to the scene and help it feel more realistic. Just a thought. Glad to see you're out shooting...

I actually have a full set of ND Grads and the Lee filter system. I ended up with only my soft grads the day I took the sunflower shots, and only one weak hard grad (I'm not really sure where all my hard grads are...I've been doing landscapes so seldom lately, they could be anywhere). I don't like the way soft grads darken the background part of the foreground when used with harsh brightness transitions, and the 0.3 Hard GND was simply not enough to be worth hassling with the filter system. So I went with HDR instead (which is still not perfect itself, with so much DR in a scene, and a glaringly bright sun, it's difficult not to encounter problems with posterization and improper blending.)

The images I shared a while back were just quick and dirty preliminary edits...I've edited several more much more extensively now, and I've tweaked the contrast to do just that...allow the sunlight shining through some of the petals to show.

Gotcha. Looking forward to the final edits. On the sunsets thread, yes?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19