July 28, 2014, 11:40:49 AM

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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 62
736
Here's my website where you can see our work to get a sense of our style...   :)  This is our latest shoot...

http://www.thebeeskneesphotographyco.com/2012/03/theodorasbirthday/


Simply stunning. Great work! You should charge more money :)

737
EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII pre-order thread
« on: March 13, 2012, 01:35:47 PM »
Damnit, B&H, I need an update. WTF?

738
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Mark - III Preorder and Delivery
« on: March 13, 2012, 01:33:58 PM »
Damnit, B&H, I need an update. WTF?

739
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chuck Westfall & the 5D Mark III
« on: March 13, 2012, 12:24:51 PM »
It caught my attention too.  Is he saying that it could, for example, correct for some of the edge of image deficiencies of UWA lenses like the 17-40L?  It can't magically make images sharp edge-to-edge of course, but possibly reduce CA and other issues?

That's how I interpret it. In light of all the stink that's been made over the 5DIII's noise and DR, if this feature actually works, this is the kind of innovation people are accustomed to seeing from Canon.

Optically, my L lenses are damn near perfect, but I wouldn't mind less vignetting from my 24-105.

740
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Calculating Dynamic Range
« on: March 13, 2012, 11:15:57 AM »
Great info! Have you used the step wedges on your 7D and 5DII, and if so, how do their measured DR compare to their calculated DR?

I have.  Both are less than the calculated DR, in my step wedge tests coming in at about 9 stops at ISO 100 (no difference between them), and (as expected) decreasing with increasing ISO.

Thanks for the info. I'm curious what you'll find with 1Dx, DR wise, once Canon decides to ship them.

741
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chuck Westfall & the 5D Mark III
« on: March 13, 2012, 11:14:50 AM »
to quote Mr. Westfall:

"A new feature called Digital Lens Optimizer processes RAW images to achieve ideal optical characteristics for all types of optical aberration or diffraction, effects of a low-pass filter in front of a CMOS sensor, etc. This function improves image quality particularly in the image periphery in addition to the image center. This function is made possible because the entire design-through-manufacture process, for camera, CMOS sensor, EF lens, and DPP, is carried out entirely at Canon. Images are processed optimally using lens information in the image files (focal length, subject distance, and aperture) and lens data specially for the Digital Lens Optimizer. (However, the size of a .CR2 file will be two to three times larger after applying the Digital Lens Optimizer.) "


This feature has received very little buzz, but I find it quite fascinating. I'm very curious how effective it will be. Maybe it's a gimmick, maybe it's a legitimately useful feature. With the shipment date of 5DIIIs imminent, we shall see very soon :)

742
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800
« on: March 13, 2012, 12:01:34 AM »
V8 Beast - since you already shoot and merge multiple exposures i am interested to hear how you think that the theoretical greater DR of the D800 is going to impact your workflow (I like how you provide specific examples illustrating your arguments)

I can see where the additional MP might benefit you and more likely to a greater extent the Nikkor 14-24 will give you some serious benfits that well outweigh the D800 benefits (I assume you are going for the E version)

I can see where there will be some marginal real world difference in a single exposure with pushed shdows but in this scenario its really subjective and up to the tolerance to noise of the individual. however as soon as you are merging multiple exposures then the theoretical DR of a single exposure goes out the window as rather than struggling pushing shadows you just take the cleaner data from the relevent exposure

I will reference this tutorial again as a way to blend exposures (I am not sure of your method)
http://goodlight.us/writing/paintinghdr/paintinghdr-1.html


Great point. For images that are captured on a tripod, or with the camera rigged to the car, there isn't much benefit of 1-2 extra stops of DR when you're merging multiple exposures. In shots that are hand-held, or that capture real action opposed to staged action, merging exposures isn't in option.

Here, I'm sticking my head out the top of an SUV. Even if I tried to keep the camera in the same spot and the composition identical from frame to frame in an effort to create a composite of multiple images, it's just not possible. The camera, the lead car, and the chase car move too much.


So, there's no other option but to make do with what you got, and try to expose the image in a way that will assist in maximizing DR in post production. As you can see, there's a tremendous difference in contrast between the highlights on the grille, and the shadow side of the car. You could always shoot the car front-lit, but that makes the subject flat and two-dimensional, which I hate. Although this approach with the Mustang is far more challenging, I find it far more rewarding.

The same goes for this shot, but the situation is slightly different.


Backlighting cars is tough, because they're not exactly translucent, but I love the results when it works. With the sun beating straight into the lens, there was very little detail left in the background, shadows, and midtones. This is another shot where multiple exposures can't be merged effectively, since I'm hand-holding the camera while hanging out the side of my minivan. Again, you have to make do with what you've got, and try to extend the DR as much as possible in a single exposure.

That said, I'm honestly not that concerned with the DR in the 5DIII. It's 22 mp are more than enough for the editorial work that I do, but there are instances for product or PR photography where extra resolution would come in handy. Extra pixels also give art directors to turn vertical shots in to horizontals, and horizontals into verticals.

743
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800
« on: March 12, 2012, 11:00:27 PM »
I hope! I'm actually interested to see what people do with really high native ISO settings...the shots of Earth from the ISS with the D3X were stunning. I can only imagine what might be possible now...

Me too. I just hope it's a real-world application of high-ISO usage. Shooting at ISO 25,600 in the middle of a sunny day on a tripod at f/22 with a pitch black ND filter is bogus. OK, that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea. IMHO, high ISO test shots that are taken in dark environments where high ISO would normally be used are valid, but shooting at high ISO in bright light just for testing purposes is questionable at best.

744
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Calculating Dynamic Range
« on: March 12, 2012, 10:51:16 PM »
The approach of taking a blown out frame and a completely dark frame is valid for calculating DR, but there are inherent assumptions in that calculation (equivalent response between the frames, etc.).  The calculated DR is almost always going to be greater than the 'usable DR' (i.e. what you can actually see in an image), since the bottom end of the calculated range is set by the noise floor, and regions only slightly brighter than that might not separate from the noise. 

The alternate method you suggest I'd call measuring DR, as opposed to calculating it.  IMO, measuring is the better way to test DR - that gives you an actual test of the usable DR.

Practically, it's pretty easy - you just need a step wedge (like the Stouffer T2115 or T4110, they cost about $10) and a bright, homogeneous backlight.  For example, below is a crop from the setup I use.  The T2115 is on the left, on the right is a chrome-on-glass USAF 1951-type resolution target (which I use for microscope imaging resolution testing).  You set the exposure so the transparent top part of the wedge is just at the clipping point, and see how many stops you can distinguish down to the other end (each step on the scale is 0.5 stops for the T2115).

Great info! Have you used the step wedges on your 7D and 5DII, and if so, how do their measured DR compare to their calculated DR?

745
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D MK lll arriving a little early ?
« on: March 12, 2012, 10:46:12 PM »
Sounds good to me. The sooner I can get my grubby hands on it the better  :)

746
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800
« on: March 12, 2012, 10:38:35 PM »
Apologies in advance if you think I should take this conversation elsewhere.

I find the tech talk somewhat interesting, but admit that I don't fully understand it. Maybe I'm too dumb or too lazy to learn. I prefer the old school method of looking at a image, and judging the quality of the technology behind it accordingly.

747
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800
« on: March 12, 2012, 10:34:06 PM »
Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter.

I never thought we were in disagreement. We just had different ways of illustrating our points. It's nice to have a civil discussion on a topic that's become so incendiary these days. As soon as the 5DIII and D800 hit the streets, hopefully people will be too busy shooting to split hairs about such trivial issues :)


748
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800
« on: March 12, 2012, 08:16:25 PM »
Certainly, I don't disagree. However, if your spending that much time tweaking every single photo one at a time, your not using modern post-processing tools effectively. Lightroom, for example, supports per-camera import profiles that can automatically apply default processing to every file you import.


I hardly spend a lot of time in post. On average, it's less than 20 seconds per image. As an old film guy, I put in enormous effort to get things right in camera. I fully understand the benefits of an efficient post production work flow, but this technique is less effective in some situations. Most of what I shoot is in natural light, which is complemented with off-camera flash, reflectors, etc. The quality of the light varies dramatically based on the time of day, weather conditions, etc. As such, it's not practical to apply a generic profile in Lightroom across a broad set of images.

The light in this image...


...is different from the light in this one...


...and this one...


...and this one...


...and this one....


...and this one...


I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Quote
Just because to change your approach to utilize the capabilities of a camera better does not mean you have to spend an extra, inordinate amount of time in post "compensating" for the "deficiencies" of your gear.


It's not always about deficiencies in gear. There are certain situations in which you can't possibly expect your camera to capture the image you're picturing in your head. You just need to understand the limitations of your equipment and adjust your technique accordingly.

For instance, you can't expect any camera on earth to properly expose the range of shadows and highlights in this image...


...but to get this shot to look how I envisioned it in my head, the final image was assembled with close to a dozen different exposures, fill light, reflectors, etc. If you can configure Lightroom to read my mind and assemble this image for me with some nifty presets, I'm game. Again, this has nothing to do with a deficiency of the equipment used, but more DR would have certainly reduced my time in post production


Quote
If you have DR limitations, light the scene properly, or slap on a GND


I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but just because you want to more DR doesn't mean you aren't already implementing such techniques. I sure hope anyone that wants to have a career spanning longer than two weeks would already be familiar with such basic techniques :)

Quote
Even if they were...I'd blame the photographer, not the camera.  ::)


No one's blaming the gear. IMHO, the photographer always deserves the blame. Even in situations where the equipment is clearly at fault, it's the photographer's responsibility to know these issues or risks and bring the right tools to the job.

749
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 5D Mark III at this year's SXSW?
« on: March 12, 2012, 07:14:51 PM »
I don't have a badge, so it sounds like it will cost me $595? Yikes. I'm an Austinite, but I'll have to pass.

750
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX or 5D Mark III at this year's SXSW?
« on: March 12, 2012, 06:12:39 PM »
Thanks for the heads up. I had no idea Canon was going to be in attendance. How much does it cost to get into the trade show?

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 62