August 29, 2014, 08:47:05 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 - infilm

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
I can't speak as to the SL1 or the NEX6 as I haven't had a chance to play with them. I do have a few words about the X-E1. Nice build and capable to delivering terrific images. I also like the Fuji lens line up. The EVF in the Fuji is sad. The refresh rate on it is fantastically slow. Constantly jumping around until you depress the shutter release down halfway, which if you are in MF means that the camera won't focus anymore, at all. If you release the shutter button you get your MF back but the EVF begins jumping around again. If you choose AF, its painfully slow. My 6y/o Lumix GF1 eats its lunch in focus speed. Also, the Fuji in AF never seems to just focus and lock on, it always passes the point of focus by a small amount and then returns to focus and locks in. Way too slow for me.

2
@Omar. I have been doing table top motion photography for many years, as well as motion picture lighting for cars and other very reflective objects over a period of 25 years. In looking at the 2 photos of the rings, it appears to me, that you are trying to get to a very white world. That will result in a pretty flat image. Unless you add some kind of silver reflective material or some hard light for a few "pings" in the ring. If that is what you are after then you need to build a white cave around the ring and it needs to be lit fairly evenly. This can be done with large cards or with some kind of this white material and lighting that from behind. The camera can be hidden behind a large card, at least 4'x4' and then removing the black spot of the lens in post. It is likely that you may not see the lens reflected as it should be very tiny. Another technique I have used. You need to build a completely black world around the ring. You then light the black which will become white reflective in the ring. The remaining areas of the black that are not lit will become greys and blacks in the ring and should render some very nice reflections. This technique does require more lighting and is more difficult to achieve good results, but the time spent can be very satisfying. Good luck.

3
Lenses / Re: Tele lens for football/soccer
« on: September 11, 2012, 12:00:37 AM »
You might want to consider renting a long lens if you are on a budget. If you intend to buy, I'd go with the 300 f4 L. Great lens and a good value. Also if you can be patient you might be able to steal one on the used market. There are great deals for someone who isn't in a rush to buy

4
Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes
« on: September 10, 2012, 11:47:52 PM »
@Brian, I see that you have a 50 f1.8. I also have one and have used it with the Kenko extension tubes with good results. If have the $ I would say just buy the set of tubes from Kenko (about $200). If you are going to rent I would recommend going with a 12mm tube if you are shooting wedding ring macros. Hope this helps. Good luck.

5
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 16, 2012, 09:54:19 AM »
One of my best.
Such an epic photo. I have seen many of these (I'm sure you have as well) always an epic photo. Nice job.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Need Help, 1 DsIII vs 5d mark III
« on: August 06, 2012, 02:55:07 AM »
I understand that my post here is off topic, but I'll hope that all here forgive my poor posting manners. I have to say that I'm really happy that I stumbled upon this post, as it helped me make a camera body decision that I have been struggling with. I am a happy owner of both a 7D and more recently at 5D2. I had an old 30D and shot tons of images with it, and it was really what enabled me to fully embraced the digital world, (yes, I was one of those guys that was holding onto the dream of film...)So I got the 7D and was wildly impressed with it, even with the noisy nature of the images that it produced. Super AF, great metering, and 8FPS. Really, a great camera. But I missed the FF of 35mm film. So I found a 5D2 and was wowed at the IQ but the meter was just okay, and the AF sucked... Especially with my longer primes. My struggle has been sell both bodies and go where? Go backwards and grab a 1DsIII or go for the 5D3. After reading the posts here, the 5D3 is the perfect animal for the type of photos I tend to go for.. Thanks

7
Lighting / Re: Anyone used a LED ring light for macro?
« on: August 03, 2012, 04:53:21 PM »
I have used it in commercial shoot under cabinets, down bannisters, in cabinets, in all sorts of cars, ect. I have also made some panels with it. Since the ribbon is adhesive backed I have mounted it to white coroplast and made very shallow units. Put you favorite diffusion and gel on it and instant light panel. I have one that is roughly 4"x8" that has 8 or 9 feet of ribbon on it. Its incredibly bright and it runs off of a small battery pack. They are very useful.

8
Lighting / Re: Anyone used a LED ring light for macro?
« on: August 03, 2012, 01:04:49 PM »
I would use light ribbon to make a ring light. You can buy a 16' roll daylight balanced for about $130. Then just pick a power source. I have run a whole roll from a AA battery pack for about an hour. That would be 8 AA batteries. Have a look at www.litegear.com. For some reason he doesn't list just the roll of LED's on the website but I do know he sell it.

Had to re-read the post a couple of times since I don't see it on the website, but wow, that's pretty awesome. How can he do a 16' for $130 when his shorter ones are so much more expensive?
The stuff on the website is his new stuff and those prices are for a kit. So, a AC to DC power supply, a dimmer, some extension cables, and some different connectors for the ribbon. All you really need from him is the lite ribbon and the connectors, and maybe the dimmer.

9
Lighting / Re: Anyone used a LED ring light for macro?
« on: August 03, 2012, 12:40:13 PM »
I would use light ribbon to make a ring light. You can buy a 16' roll daylight balanced for about $130. Then just pick a power source. I have run a whole roll from a AA battery pack for about an hour. That would be 8 AA batteries. Have a look at www.litegear.com. For some reason he doesn't list just the roll of LED's on the website but I do know he sell it.

10
Lighting / Re: Fauxtographer Ruins Olympic photos.
« on: July 07, 2012, 02:07:01 PM »
I think it is interesting that they keep talking about 100 athletes in 3 days. There are many of us out there that shoot individual/team photos that eclipse that number in an afternoon.  He said he had a days notice...so he should have dropped everything, researched and gotten prepared. He wasn't asked to shoot the local baseball league...this was the Olympic team...you drop everything...immediately. And take every piece of gear you have. When I go on a shoot for team sports, I am bring 5 strobes (I use 2) and 3 small flashes, 3 bodies and every lens I have in addition to light modifiers, remotes, etc.  and I get asked why I bring so much gear to "take a picture"...and my reply is because "it's the gear I don't realize I need till I get there". It is more work lugging that stuff but better to have the gear and be prepared than to make excuses. 

It is easy to sit back and say "I could have done better"...but stop and think about everything involved from the environment to the other photogs, to dealing with the athletes, the stress, among other things. I can only imagine that sick feeling this poor guy has. But I bet you he will never go into a situation unprepared again. That's if this episode doesn't ruin him.
+1 to you

11
Lighting / Re: Fauxtographer Ruins Olympic photos.
« on: July 07, 2012, 02:05:31 PM »
The photographer explains his actions here.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/06/photographer-joe-klamar-explains-his-controversial-olympic-portraits/

Preparation is key.
His own explanation shows a full failure. "I was under the impression that I was going to be photographing athletes on a stage or during press conference where I would take their headshots for our archives,” He knew that he was going to be taking portraits "for archives" and he brought a wide zoom a long zoom a 300 and a flash. Even knowing what he was to shoot he brought the wrong equipment. Poor lens choices and not enough lighting gear.

12
Lighting / Re: Fauxtographer Ruins Olympic photos.
« on: July 07, 2012, 01:53:33 PM »
It's very easy to criticise these photos from the armchair. Clearly the photog did not have enough time to make decent looking images and has limited experience on posing people (the 'dive' shot, anyone?  ???).

I feel sorry for him for the results of this shoot. He was probably rushed off his feet and stressed by people who have unrealistic expectations when someone more experienced/established (somebody mentioned Joe McNally) would probably have answered back along the lines of "Hang on... you're not going to get a portrait from me within 60 seconds."

The photographer probably decided it was better to have tripe than to have nothing. Hopefully he will learn from this assignment and it won't ruin his career too much.
Rushed or not, if you are a real pro you create the time to make a good image. I don't agree that this person was rushed at all. This guy just don't know how to create a good portrait. Every image has serious lighting or composition flaws. Very poor.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Argh! Photos don't look like 7D photos.
« on: July 07, 2012, 01:26:07 PM »
These people aren't really bringing up the only real factor here. Yes, editing helps, but you shouldn't have to do any real serious editing to any great natural light portraits.

The real issue here is light.

The first image is shot under much higher sun, it's harder light, and can easily wash colors out because it's on a higher angle and generally looks bad if you don't know how to use it.

The second image, the one you seem to like, was shot indoors, under lower ambient, where it's softer, and coming from "all over" as opposed to from one specific angle up in the sky.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the editing will make the difference, it might HELP fix problems, but if you shoot it really well, you shouldn't have to do much editing at all. If it was all done really well in the camera, then the very minor things will help get an over all better image like white balance.
Well said... Shooting mid-day is almost always going to give poor results when shooting portraits. The hardness of the sun when overhead is difficult to deal with. Try shooting in the early morning or very late afternoon. The sun can then either be a backlight or a key light you'll have much better results.

14
my shots are underexposed with the lens cap on :o
LMFAO!!

15
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: July 03, 2012, 01:57:11 PM »
I shot this in Central Ca near Hearst Castle

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5