July 28, 2014, 08:57:32 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 - thedman

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 09, 2014, 02:01:21 PM »
Just took it for a spin in Glacier and Banff. So sharp I never felt the need to get the Zeiss 21mm out of the bag.


2
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: June 25, 2014, 01:07:25 PM »
Got mine just in time to take it on a 2 week backpacking trip through the Canadian Rockies. Hope it's as good a landscape lens as it promises!

3
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 12:39:37 PM »

4
So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.

5
Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 04:13:00 PM »
I would buy two of these three. Which of course means this is a bogus rumor.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 06, 2014, 01:22:17 PM »

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.

What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.

Just google "Lindisfarne Boats".  A great photo, but outside the rules and ultimately disqualified.

That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here. You do realize I'm referring to two exposures at the same time, combined with a gradient mask, right?


7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 07:01:04 PM »
anyway in some situations you need a grad filter because doing it in photoshop is not faster and tedious work.

It's only tedious work if you're making it way better than a grad ND could do. If you're just replicating a grad ND, it's a matter of seconds.

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 05:54:30 PM »
there are times when i use this PS technique myself.
simple seascapes with a straight horizon.... yep. no need to pull out the nd grad.

Ironically, that's the only time when your horizon is as straight as your grad-ND edge.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 05:51:32 PM »
Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.

Takes the glare off water and foliage just like it does windows.

Just wait for the right light.

There is no 'right light' that doesn't produce glare on water and foliage.

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 04:43:27 PM »
two 8 minutes exposure = 16 minutes.
using a nd grad filter to do it right in camera = 8 minutes.

2 1-minute exposures = 2 minutes
1 1-minute exposure + digging around your bag for your 3 stop hard, wiping it off with your microfiber cloth,  searching for your screw-on filter ring,  screwing it on, sliding in your filter and figuring out where you should align it because your horizon isn't horizontal and the thing is darkening too much foreground = 5 minutes.



i adressed that above. i knew that this question would arise so i edited my post.

What you did was set up a straw-man argument. Replacing the sky is something completely different. So is cranking the saturation to 100, but neither one is what we're talking about here. Nat Geo is fine with doing it digitally.

well you spoke about "speed"... now you added money to the argumentation.
i only anwered to your "speed" claim. ;)

I haven't even begun yet to mention the infinite adaptability, and just briefly mentioned that horizons are never straight anyway so grad NDs are a poor, clunky tool for this task...

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 04:29:22 PM »
long exposures for example.
where you need a ND and a ND grad for the sky.
it´s sure not faster to do two long exposures and combine them in photoshop. :)

I don't see why not. And it's way cheaper!

then there are moving leaves and other objects that can ruin your simple "gradient" compositing. and voila... you need longer editing in photoshop then pushing a nd-grad.

This is about the only example where it may take longer. Still, I'll do the little extra mask modifying and save the hundreds.


of course when you have two images like those in the examples from the tutorial mackguyver posted, it works pretty well. no question. but those examples are tailor made.

Those examples are 99% of why people buy grad NDs.

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.

What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.


that is fine for a photoshop competition but (imo) nature or landscapes should be natural not fictional.

Are grad NDs fictional?

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 03:42:06 PM »
i am a photoshop user since v1 and i doubt that.  ;D

don´t get me wrong i do it myself with images from my "always with me cameras".... but good landscape images take some time and planing anyway.

when im out for landscapes i have my gear ready and using a ND-GRAD filter takes seconds.

Drawing a gradient on a layer mask takes less than a second.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 03:18:30 PM »
Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.

Takes the glare off water and foliage just like it does windows.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 03:16:09 PM »
Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

i wonder how you do that.. bothering with comping two images in PS?
or waiting for a canon with the DR of 20 stops?

and polarizer?
how do you remove, for example, reflections in postproduction?
niks polarization or kolors neutralhazer plugins are crap compared with the real deal.

i guess some of todays best landscape photographers would be interested to know your secrets. :D

I agree that the polarizer is indispensable, but I can comp two images in post quicker than I can get out a grad ND and attach it.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: When Does the Year of the Lens Start?
« on: May 02, 2014, 11:24:14 AM »
Exactly what I've been wondering for months. Canon was ridiculously behind schedule at the end of 2013, so when we were told 2014 was going to be the Year of the Lens it wasn't hard to believe. I'm pretty stunned that there's still nothing (a Powershot announcement is still nothing), and the perpetual '100-400 being tested' rumor has been mentioned so many times it doesn't even count as a rumor anymore.

Pages: [1] 2 3